An Eberflus poll

[Rusty Trombagent]

Something I've been thinking a lot about the last few days, mods please bear with me.

Feel free to elaborate on your answer in this thread.

[dplank]

I went Lovie because he had a long stretch of winning football here. Flus has not done anything close to that yet and doesn't seem to have any special skills lurking that I can point to that will push him above Lovie given the dramatic performance gap thus far.

[malk]

Incomplete for Flus.

Y1 was tanky.
Y2 was the Fields experiment coming to an end but the defence was absolutely sorted out by the end of the season.
Y3 is the first season with Williams so we're going to get some rookie QB weirdness but the team is absolutely good enough to carry poor QB play. The defence is still great so par is 10 wins... but the division has become incredibly brutal...

But Lovie made the Superbowl in his 3rd year. Admittedly he inherited Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, Brown which is nice but still, he helped make them what they became.

[wab]

Lovie went to the super bowl, so he gets my vote.

[crueltyabc]

Lovie was more successful and rarely had a more talented offense than Flus had this and last year. He did more with less.

[otis]

Lovie went to the super bowl, so he gets my vote.

same, but they both suck, in their own special ways. flus for stupidity and lovie for rigidity.

[Otis Day]

Kind of a tough question due to the tank year Eebz had to go thru.

Lovie inherited a ton of D talent. I believe Lovie had some of the same problems as Eebz - poor clock management being one.

I guess just taking them as head coaches of the Bears, Lovie would get the nod at this point. After he left the Bears he was nothing special.

[Rusty Trombagent]

Lovie was more successful and rarely had a more talented offense than Flus had this and last year. He did more with less.

Lovie never had as talented an offense because they consistently had to devote 90% of resources to the defense. So yeah, it's true, though it's also at least partially Lovie's fault.

[Rusty Trombagent]

Lovie went to the super bowl, so he gets my vote.

Lovie went to the super bowl, refused to make any adjustments to his defense, and got picked apart on underneath stuff.

Then responded to the press with his signature "we liked our game plan, the players just needed to execute better."

[wab]

Lovie went to the super bowl, so he gets my vote.

Lovie went to the super bowl, refused to make any adjustments to his defense, and got picked apart on underneath stuff.

Then responded to the press with his signature "we liked our game plan, the players just needed to execute better."

I mean you made me pick one. So.

[Z Bear]

same, but they both suck, in their own special ways. flus for stupidity and lovie for rigidity.

Neither one could carry a stick to the John Fox challenges though.....

[Moriarty]

I think they're extremely similar and have made the comparison many times.


Lovie was here longer, so higher level of certainty about who he is. Eberflus isn't as certain yet, but the evidence has been pretty consistent thus far.


Now, before someone takes that and runs with it to "Well, Lovie got to the Super Bowl. And we only lost because our QB sucked. And Caleb doesn't. So we should stay with Eberflus!"
Yes, we got to a Super Bowl with Lovie. That doesn't mean he was a big plus to the process any more than "Rex took us to the Super Bowl" was ever accurate either. (One can make a very strong argument Lovie cost us a championship by stupidly sticking with Rex when he wetting himself in half his outings.)
And, yes, it's possible we could go to a Super Bowl with Eberflus. Why? Because Overall Team Talent matters way more than the Head Coach does.
Still, that's not a great excuse to keep a mediocre or subpar coach around. Even though you might be able to manage with them, look for someone who is actually good and makes you better.

[thefish7]

I had to vote Lovie. He wasn't perfect or even great. He was a good HC though. Only one we had since Ditka, in my opinion. And I'm old enough to remember how much my dad hated Ditka at times.

Anyway, Lovie gets my vote, but I'm not ready to close the book on flus. I need to see the conference games to decide my position. Flus has his problems, and I'm most bothered by the failed opportunity to take accountability as soon as that game was over... But so far his teams have never quit. If this one doesn't, I'll probably be in the keep flus camp. I think NFL HCs most important contribution is team culture.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Lovie = leader
Flus = flop

[Arkansasbear]

It's about results so I vote Lovie in a landslide. Much like Tuesday when a landslide is had by ...

[Mikefive]

Despite their clear similarities, it's hard to compare them. If you have to pick one, Lovie's the obvious choice as he has a longer resume, but also significantly more time to build it. Flus dealing with a complete teardown in year 1 was not his fault. So there's that.

Here's my way of looking at this topic. Do I think Lovie was a Super Bowl winning capable head coach? No, I don't. What about Eberflus? That last game proved to me that he isn't either. That's all that matters in my mind. In that way I suppose you could call them equal. To Dick Jauron and Dave Wannstedt and Abe Gibron for that matter. Not good enough.

To compare them to make a point just doesn't do anything for me.