Old No. 46 just another sad reminder

[Halas85]

Old No. 46 just another sad reminder

By Mike Imrem | Daily Herald Columnist
Published: 1/26/2009 12:00 AM

Everything bothers me about the Bears these days.

They're like the brother-in-law you love because you're stuck with him, but everything about him drives you crazy.

My latest discomfort with the Bears came in the form of something that around the NFL was just another team hiring another assistant coach.

Around my breakfast table it was a bowl of yuck: Doug Plank is joining the New York Jets' coaching staff.

Plank played safety under former Bears defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan, father of new Jets head coach Rex Ryan.

The legacy of the Bears' famed and feared "46" defense is alive. Buddy Ryan developed it and named it for Plank's uniform number.

Rex Ryan's defense technically isn't the 46 but does reflect some of its elements - most of all a nasty attitude.

The Plank news reminds me a little of covering a White Sox game in what then was the Texas Rangers' new ballpark.

The place incorporated features of many old baseball parks and had more of the old Comiskey Park than the new Comiskey Park had. Now the Jets' defense will feature more Bears tradition than the current Bears defense features.

Sorry, but it always struck me as unfortunate that the Cover-2 defense employed by Bears head coach Lovie Smith is more Tampa than Chicago.

Graduates of the 46 are coaching all over the NFL - head coaches Ryan, Jeff Fisher and Mike Singletary among them, along with assistants like Plank and Ron Rivera.

Yet Smith digs the Bears deeper down the Cover-2 hole by hiring fellow Tampa alum Rod Marinelli as an assistant.

Listen, none of this means the Cover-2 can't be as effective as the 46. The Bears reached Super Bowl XLI playing it, and the Colts beat them there playing it.

Meanwhile, the Bears won Super Bowl XX with the 46 but also had losing seasons with it. Plank played on some of those losing teams and was gone by the time the Bears won the Super Bowl.

Anyway, my objections concern style more than substance. It's about what feels right and what feels wrong. When the Cover-2 succeeds, I tolerate it rather than celebrate it. When it fails, I condemn it rather than defend it.

What felt right was Buddy's boys trying to destroy opposing offenses, even when the personnel wasn't good enough to win many games. Plank symbolized the 46's approach by being one of the hardest-hitting safeties ever. A Bears defense should be all about attacking offenses, pressuring quarterbacks, terrorizing ballcarriers?

Win or lose - yes, quite often lose - the Bears were monsters. That doesn't seem to be the current defense's identity.

The Cover-2 or Tampa-2 or whatever is characterized as something that Bears history dismisses with disdain - bend but don't break.

Smith does preach forcing turnovers, but Bears football should force fumbles behind the line of scrimmage rather than 20 yards downfield.

Please, give me the 46 with a touch of Cover-2 instead of the Cover-2 with a touch of 46.

Seriously, the Jets' style will look more like the Bears' should look than the Bears do look, just as the Ravens' did while Rex Ryan was their defensive coordinator.

So around here Doug Plank won't be just another assistant coach with the Jets. He will be a bothersome reminder of how the Bears should play defense.

[Halas85]

I posted this article because I loved the following line, which articulates exactly how I feel about the Cover-2 vs. other, more attaching defensive schemes:

Anyway, my objections concern style more than substance. It's about what feels right and what feels wrong. When the Cover-2 succeeds, I tolerate it rather than celebrate it. When it fails, I condemn it rather than defend it.

[Boris13c]

I posted this article because I loved the following line, which articulates exactly how I feel about the Cover-2 vs. other, more attaching defensive schemes:

Anyway, my objections concern style more than substance. It's about what feels right and what feels wrong. When the Cover-2 succeeds, I tolerate it rather than celebrate it. When it fails, I condemn it rather than defend it.

when Tampa Bay ran it with great success it was because they had the players to make the scheme successful ... and that is what Lovie Dovie and his shower soap boy Babich do not understand

a GOOD coach assesses the abilities of the players he/she has, and puts them in a scheme to best use their skills and achieve success

a BAD coach has his/her pet scheme, forces their players into it whether they are a good fit or not, and then sits dumb as an ox and silently observes the mixed results without making adjustments

Lovie Smith is a BAD coach ... those he has appointed under him suck even worse

[Halas85]

a BAD coach has his/her pet scheme, forces their players into it whether they are a good fit or not, and then sits dumb as an ox and silently observes the mixed results without making adjustments

I'll take this a step further: A bad coach is also one who is so enamored with his pet scheme that his philosophy in acquiring and utilizing players is less about all-out, skull-crackin football ability and more about "fitting the scheme." That's listless coach speak for, "I love him, but I'm not in love with him."

[wab]

Lovie Smith is a BAD coach

Statistically this is incorrect.

[G08]

a BAD coach has his/her pet scheme, forces their players into it whether they are a good fit or not, and then sits dumb as an ox and silently observes the mixed results without making adjustments

Lovie Smith is a BAD coach ... those he has appointed under him suck even worse

Averaging 9 wins a season since coming here makes him a bad coach? Ok... I won't call him the best coach in the NFL but "a bad coach" is something you won't hear come out of my mouth (unless he bombs this season).

[Otis Day]

I'll take this a step further: A bad coach is also one who is so enamored with his pet scheme that his philosophy in acquiring and utilizing players is less about all-out, skull-crackin football ability and more about "fitting the scheme." That's listless coach speak for, "I love him, but I'm not in love with him."

Exactly, when you draft players to fit the Tampax 2 that is what they are equipped to play. It is hard for them to play within any other scheme. Light quick DL men can't be smash mouth football players and that is why power teams can kick their ass all over the field a majority of the time.

[wab]

Averaging 9 wins a season since coming here makes him a bad coach? Ok... I won't call him the best coach in the NFL but "a bad coach" is something you won't hear come out of my mouth (unless he bombs this season).

I'm pretty sure we are the only ones here that don't hate Lovie. Do I think he's the best coach? No. But I would take 10 of him over the train wrecks in Detroit, Oakland, San Fran, Dallas, and St Louis.

Over the last 4 years we trail only the Giant's by one or two games as the winningest NFC team. And I think we are top 5 in the NFL over that span.

[wab]

Exactly, when you draft players to fit the Tampax 2 that is what they are equipped to play. It is hard for them to play within any other scheme. Light quick DL men can't be smash mouth football players and that is why power teams can kick their ass all over the field a majority of the time.

If I didn't know better, I would say your are now manufacturing reasons to hat the team...because we have actually been solid against "smash mouth" teams. We get gashed in the passing game because of lack of pressure on opposing QB's. Passing is not "smash mouth".

Do I love the scheme? Hell no. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's not effective when played properly. And you gotta remember we only play Cover 2 30% of the time!

[Boris13c]

Averaging 9 wins a season since coming here makes him a bad coach? Ok... I won't call him the best coach in the NFL but "a bad coach" is something you won't hear come out of my mouth (unless he bombs this season).

ok, so we get 9 wins a season ... with nothing to show for it

Lovie Smith's teams are gutless in games where it counts ... I could go through and list all of the games I was referring to, but will suffice with the season ending loss against Houston, an allegedly inferior team ... a must win for the Bears ... and they play like it's a pre-season game ... no drive, no fire, no commitment

if you're satisfied with a gutless choking dog team that cannot grasp the concept of a must win game, more power to you

I want to see a team out there every game, playing like it is their last ... do I expect them to win them all? nope ... but I don't expect them to roll over like dogs in the games they don't win

Lovie Smith has neutered the team ... no one is afraid to play the Bears, even in their home Chicago field

so I stand by my opinion

[G08]

ok, so we get 9 wins a season ... with nothing to show for it

Nothing to show for it? We have two NFC North championships, one NFC championship, and the resultant appearance in the Super Bowl in Lovie's third season. I'm not going to jump ship now because we sucked last season. How many down years did Bill Cowher have in Pittsburgh in his time there?

I'm giving Lovie THIS one more year because he now has HIS guys in place coaching. If we fail, fire them all and start over with the aformentioned Cowher (or Holmgren for all I care).

[Halas85]

If I didn't know better, I would say your are now manufacturing reasons to hat the team...because we have actually been solid against "smash mouth" teams.

I'm not going to jump ship now because we sucked last season. How many down years did Bill Cowher have in Pittsburgh in his time there?

I don't think anyone's trying to hate the Bears or wants to jump ship. We can disagree on all kinds of things, but let's all acknowledge that the truth around which all our posts are based is a love and a passion for the Bears.

That said, Lovie was given a lot of talent to work with when he came in to coach this team. Remember after his first year, which in the most positive light could be called a "transition period," we were told by Sports Illustrated that the Bears were the NFL's worst team? We all knew that was BS because this team had tremendous talent, and most of us contended they'd compete for the NFC North title. And that was before Lovie even showed us he could coach.

Since then, of course, Lovie showed he could win the games he should win (and even some that surprised us, common in today's NFL), but how often did we see a win and think, "That was a pure coaching victory" or "That game plan totally caught them off guard"? How often has Lovie shown the ability to adapt or surprised us (and opposing teams) with new looks or re-defined schemes? It seems it's a general consensus in NFL circles that Lovie's a better planning and preparatory coach than a sideline coach, and yet we continue to see signs that Lovie's coaching philosophy gently balances on a naive notion that his game plan will define the tempo of each game. There seems to be little consideration for contingency planning should this confident assertion fall by the wayside.

Then there's the issue with his insistence that players and coaches bow to the scheme he reveres, whether it's encouraging the signing of Archuletta at the expense of Chris Harris, the promotion of Babich at the expense of Rivera, the promotion of Mark Anderson at the expense of Brown/competition, the refusal to part ways with Babich following the two-year collapse of our defense, or the continual mismanagement of players within his scheme such as Urlacher, Daniel Manning, and our CBs. Lovie hasn't shown that he can consistently put players in the position to best succeed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in the position to think that another coach would be able to come in and do any better than Lovie ... not immediately. And I really did like Lovie when he first arrived to coach this team. He ran some high-motor mini-camps and practices (I recall stories about how physical Lovie's first mini-camps were), he seemed quick to hold both coaches and players accountable for the lack of success (oh Terry, where are you?), and he seemed to have the team focused and on board with a confident, aggressive style that boasted the understated swagger of a team that was used to winning. He laid out some good goals and he accomplished them quickly -- beating the Packers, winning the division, getting to the Super Bowl.

But I have to ask, how much of this success was because of Lovie, and how much of it was in spite of Lovie? At the time of Lovie's hire, Favre was an interception machine that was expediting an already-sinking Packers team, the NFC North was widely considered the weakest division in football, and the NFC in general was considered a toss-up of mediocrity year after year. Does this diminish the Super Bowl appearance? Hell no. But seeing what has become of this team since losing the big game -- along with some suspect moves/non-moves by Lovie -- makes me wonder how wide our strokes of praise should be for Lovie versus crediting great players with great talent and coached by good to great coordinators and assistant coaches. Lovie should get some credit too, but in crediting the guy's coaching prowess for the success we've seen, let's also consider how perhaps his coaching style may have kept the team from realizing a greater potential.

[Boris13c]

Nothing to show for it? We have two NFC North championships, one NFC championship, and the resultant appearance in the Super Bowl in Lovie's third season.

if you are content with "always the bridesmaid, never the bride", that's your business

no championships since 1985

the Arizona Cardinals are on the cusp of one, and I didn't think I'd see that in my lifetime based on how that organization has been for seemingly forever

Lovie Dovie can take a Porsche and drive it like it is a Yugo ... his failure to utilize what his players have to offer because of his asinine stubbornness in regards to his scheme is a weakness that will never allow the team to reach the pinnacle of success

I didn't always feel this way ... I was happy when he was hired, and looked forward to good things ... he and his actions are what has changed my opinions ... now? I want him the f*ck OUT of Chicago

[gaba]

if you are content with "always the bridesmaid, never the bride", that's your business

Cub-fan syndrome?