Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Report post Posted January 2, 2007 I know this sounds sooooo meatball, and flies in the face of my previous post lamenting disposable coaches, but is Lovie Smith not the right man for the job? This sort of laid-back "we'll switch it on when we have to" culture being cultivated by Lovie and the Rons yielded a one-and-done humiliation last year, and we're on track for more of the same this year, to an even more humiliating foe, one with 8 or 9 wins to our 13. There's a lot of stuff that Lovie does well, don't get me wrong, but it seems like some critical flaws are starting to emerge that should preclude instantly handing him a raise and extension at the end of the year irrespective of the team's finish, which is what Angelo's plan reportedly is. This combination of "we don't really have to win this game" and "we don't really have to make these changes" is just too inert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 You can wait on a decision until after their 2nd round game. If they don't go to the NFC Championship, let alone the Super Bowl, his offensive coordinator and QB coach at the LEAST will be in jeopardy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Ron Rivera is supposed to be a lock for a head job in 2007, but Urlacher's remarks about the team being told this game wasn't important might drop his stock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Isn't this Smith's 2nd or 3rd season? Maybe he's still learning to gain that killer edge although I think it's too early to start questioning the man's ability to coach. A lot of good coaches struggle to make the pieces fit for a couple years. Can't start doubting the man just yet. If this continues after another season or two, that's when the doubts should hold legitimate claim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Third year, and precisely, it's not the coaching I question so much as the killer edge. The coaching seems solid, though his complacency with using Thomas Jones so much more than Cedric Benson is troubling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Third year, and precisely, it's not the coaching I question so much as the killer edge. The coaching seems solid, though his complacency with using Thomas Jones so much more than Cedric Benson is troubling. Why? I would rather have Jones play than Benson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Legalise Drugs and Murder Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Third year, and precisely, it's not the coaching I question so much as the killer edge. The coaching seems solid, though his complacency with using Thomas Jones so much more than Cedric Benson is troubling. Why? I would rather have Jones play than Benson. I do like Jones because he's such a lunchpail kind of guy that plays hard, but he's smaller and less talented than Benson. That said, the Bears are doing the right thing letting Benson develop without breaking his knees down and throwing him to the meatgrinder. Give it until early next season if Benson really busts his ass in the offseason. Jones' hopping at the line of scrimmage will catch up with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 Third year, and precisely, it's not the coaching I question so much as the killer edge. The coaching seems solid, though his complacency with using Thomas Jones so much more than Cedric Benson is troubling. Why? I would rather have Jones play than Benson. I do like Jones because he's such a lunchpail kind of guy that plays hard, but he's smaller and less talented than Benson. That said, the Bears are doing the right thing letting Benson develop without breaking his knees down and throwing him to the meatgrinder. Give it until early next season if Benson really busts his ass in the offseason. Jones' hopping at the line of scrimmage will catch up with him. This is why I want Jones playing. Let Benson learn the game at a slower pace than someone like Cadillac Williams who will probably be out of the league by the time Benson gets the starting job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 I Got this off of yahoo: The other fortunate element for Schottenheimer is that there's only one team in the AFC draw that can give the Chargers serious matchup problems. That's the Baltimore Ravens, who can stop San Diego's running game. The problem is that Baltimore can only beat the Chargers if the Ravens can play them at home in a cold-weather game. Otherwise, the Chargers will be able to score too much for the Ravens. The cold weather should have nothing to do with it, as the Ravens beat the Chargers and it was like 70 degrees that day (The other guy pointed that out), about what it'll be in SD in a couple weeks. The only difference is that was in Baltimore and the rematch, should there be one, would be in SD. The Ravens are not (and never have been) a cold/bad weather team, as evidenced by the fact 2 of their 3 losses came in bad/cold weather (@ Denver/ @ Cincy). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2007 I fail to see how a team playing in nice 70 degree weather is a home field advantage. The Pats playing at a freezing, snowy Foxboro? Advantage. SD playing on a sunny day in S. CA? Not so much. I know the Chiefs can seriously run the ball, but if there's one thing the Colts can do it's win a wild card game at home. It might be mildly interesting, but the Colts should take it. Does the world really need a 3rd matchup of San Diego and Kansas City anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
