Comments on: McCarthy swimming in cash

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:30:23 +0000

Ha – no! I think you’re right! Most teams are not run very well. Such is life, though.

By: RayMidge

RayMidge — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:29:06 +0000

Dave- If i were a Chi fan I would be more frustrated with Angelo. Lovie is a limited coach, but what he does he does very well (defense, special teams). The larger picture is that most coaches are similarly limited (MM is, Tomlin probably is). Visionaries who alone raise a team’s play are few and far between and most of those guys are personnel guys too (walsh, immy johnson, Belichick, parcells). I think that the Bears can win a SB with Lovie and the right GM, I don’t think they can with Angelo as that GM.

Nick, as for why they extend them so early and impulsively- I don’t know. I agree that it often doesn’t seem to make sense (the Chilly deal after half a season of Favre was particularly puzzling) but I suppose it has become standard in the NFL to view a coach with less than 2 years remaining as lacking authority and thus not extending him is seen as a sign of instability. Constant media focus on why the coach hasn’t been extended can become a distraction I guess? I dunno. I agree that teams tend to “pay high”. Maybe the reason is that most teams just aren’t run very well- is that too pedestrian of a reason?

By: DaveK

DaveK — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:55:58 +0000

All right then – If you own the Bears do you have a bigger problem with Lovie or Angelo? Angelo is sort of like Lovie…good but not great. I just don’t think Lovie is the type of coach that is going to take a marginal roster and coach them up enough to win a championship. But, if Lovie had a great GM would he be good enough coach to win a championship?

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:48:18 +0000

I totally agree – take Bill Cowher in Pittsburgh the year before they won the Super bowl, he was signed again after a 6-10 season. I’m just asking why teams think it makes sense to extend a coach that has a few years left in his deal only because they did well in the playoffs.

For example, Lovie this year, and Childress last year. They had years left, but teams extended them anyway. Seems to be a bad tactic to me. If nothing else, they are “buying high” as they are paying after a successful season.

By: RayMidge

RayMidge — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:30:44 +0000

I think that guys like Lovie get re-signed because stability is the key to success in the NFL. If a guy isn”t completely out of his depth (e.g. Jim Zorn) or lost the team (e.g. Phillips and Chilly this past year) or burnt out (Jeff Fisher) it almost always makes sense to stick with your coach. In my opinion the most important thing for success in the NFL is player evaluation. I’d say that judging on the most successful franchises of the last 10-15 years, a totally unscientific but fairly informed guess would be that success is something like 50% player evaluation/front office, 30% scheme/coaching and 20% luck. If a coach isn’t actively hurting you and has a decent scheme most (smart) teams will not make a change.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:13:19 +0000

All that to be said – I’m glad Chi did that. They just locked up mediocrity for another 5 years.

Early 2011 predictions (if we have a season):
Packers: 11-5
Lions: 9-7
Vikings: 8-8
Bears: 6-10

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:11:51 +0000

Agreed – so why extend his contract? Seems like a lot of exuberance for a team that won a single playoff game against the worst playoff team in the history of the NFL.

Was he going to leave in the offseason? That is the ONLY reason to extend a coach that has not won the ultimate prize – if they will leave otherwise, and you feel your alternatives are no better.

By: DaveK

DaveK — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:31:46 +0000

Yeah, if the Packers lose to NY or the Bears and miss the playoffs we’d all be asking if MM had what it takes to take this team to a championship. Many of us would be saying “No, he does not!”. He absolutely would have been on the hot seat with fans. That Detroit game would have been remembered as the game that scuttled the season and maybe MM’s career.

The Bears… They have a good coach who is a quality individual. He manages a locker well and clearly has the respect of his team. He coaches defense extremely well but is married to a system that may be past it’s prime in the NFL. I also don’t think he changes quickly enough as I have never see much creativity in his teams especially on offense. Lovie only knows how to win one way and if that one way is limited because of injury or a void in the roster he doesn’t have the creatively to adapt his team. You could do a lot worse then Lovie Smith but I have my doubts he is good enough to ever get it done. The stars aligned for them this year and they still fell short. Lovie teams will always be good but never great. Just like their coach.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:47:17 +0000

Yeah, have to agree. I called for MM’s head a couple times…and am glad that I was wrong.

He’s got a street, there no reason to not give him that extension! There are plenty of great coaches who never won the Super Bowl (Jeff Fisher, etc.) – so reward the man for getting to the ultimate goal.

One thing I never understood is extending coaches who merely make the playoffs or win a division – what does that prove? Take the Vikings – they make the NFC championship with the most stacked team in a long time, and Chilly gets an extension; only to get fired the next year. Lovie Smith is in the same boat – why extend those guys when there have always been questions? Where are they going to go that you need to resign them so bad??

And TOTALLY agree – go get Capers for as long as you can!!!

By: 56coop

56coop — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:32:06 +0000

Now, sign Capers & let’s go get # 5