Coach of the year

I'd have to say that them boyz up there with Moose might just do their average coach proud by lucking up and winning a SB this year.

If their O starts clicking now with Grossman (better than with Orton, obviously) then they are gonna be very hard to beat.

I think that Billichick has done admirably considering the injuries they've had this year and the fact they still could go deep in the post season. Tho I hope not, cause I hate the Pats, and Brady is the anti-Elvis.

Marvin Lewis has built a very good team from the ashes of dispair and looks to go deep in the PS.

I like Saban, and think he's a very good guy and coach, but not COY this year.

If the saints would've managed a five win season outa the heap of hell they've travelled thru this year, he coulda been COY, imo. If he coulda especially gone on a roll and won their last 3 games and played a major spoiler.

Dungy? Why not, because it's expected?

Is it a yearly thing? I would tend to think so.


Should a coach get COY honors when he has great talent and they execute well? Bad talent that executes and wins? Builds a good team for the future?
Has built a good team from a bad team in a short amount of time? Is a continuous perenial contendor?

Get extra points because they are a minority?

Get thru exraordinay circumstances and come out a winner?

There's a bunch of questions.

It would seem like the media likes to jump on new coaches' bandwagons when they are winning, especially if they are a minority.
It's envogue.

 

It was a terrible call, and an obvious one at that. He was down by contact.

That being said, yeah, to take a swipe in the general direction of an official is not cool.

 

The team that absolutely should not be where it is at is the Denver Broncos. My vote is for Shanahan. Partly b/c I am sick of hearing about Chicago. And the Colts are likely going to go 14-2 and what is the big deal about that?

I would say Gruden, but I don't think they will make the playoffs and who cares about a middle of the pack team. Also got to give it up for Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren who I thought had seen better days as a coach.

 

I don't think its luck when it happens again and again. The Defense is legitimate. The only thing really lacking has been quarterback play.

Now, when you are so defensive minded, its hard to keep that together and win close games. We saw those flip just last year losing close games after some injuries hit.

 

That is one of your most asinine arguments yet. According to that logic, luck has absolutely never decided a football game in the history of the NFL, because they were all won by one team outscoring their opponent. Maybe Lovie Smith really is doing a great coaching job and I just don't see it, but I'd love to hear an explanation as to how this team is so different from the one in '01 that seems to bear so many similarities.


hasbeens99:
I think the rule was explained to you once already, but Jenkins wasn't down for the same reason that Proehl didn't make his catch a couple of weeks ago. You are required to maintain possession after the catch through some kind of football move after making contact with the ground.


Piper:
Teams have charmed or cursed seasons all the time. We were bad in 2001, but not 1-15 bad. That season we seemed to have absolutely everything break against us, resulting in a lot of losses that could have (and perhaps should have) been wins.

 

Certainly. I'm not denying that teams have not lucked into the playoffs before.

I just don't see a bad football team. Bad QB, yeah, but not a dearth of talent. Certainly nothing as bad as us in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. Jones is certainly a better runner than what we had then. I see a much better O-line. They don't have the Colts recieving corps, or even Zona's, or anything close to Smith to compliment Moose. But I don't know how bad their recievers have been with Orton playing.

And when Ian Scott is your weakest link on defense, that's good.

Even that 01 Chicago team was good defensively. Not this good, but good. They rode a hot runner, an opportunistic defense, and at times they could hit Marty Booker for a big play.

It's just hard to keep that kind of team together sometimes. They got some guys hurt, like we did last year, and lacked the depth and the handfull of playmakers left to make adjustments.

 

Erase the two hailmary victories from 2001, and Chicago doesn't win the NFC Central. There are no such outstanding instances of luck that you can point to this season. I think it is a fair comparison, given the similar style of football. But it doesn't mean Smith should lose consideration, just because they are kinda sorta like the other playoff team from four years ago. And it doesn't mean that they are certain to tank next year. Who else is ready to step up in that division?

Another thing to consider is that the 2001 Bears were forced to travel for their home games in 2002. Next year's team won't have to deal with that shit.

 

The 2001 Bears were a good football team that lost to a better team in the playoffs. No one, certainly not me, ever put that team on a pedistal.

Nor am I claiming the 2005 Bears to be on par with the 1985 Bears. But they are what they are: 10-4. Luck? No.

Did you see what that defense did to the Falcons sunday? Not saying ATL is that great offensively, but they destroyed them.

Their defense is the most explosive in the NFL. They have a very strong running game. They have bad quarterbacks, but they don't ask them to do much. The offensive line is one of the best in the NFL. They are strong in all the right places.

 

A lot more than "kinda sorta." I'm pretty sure you were shocked at how similar they were, judging by what you said before I posted the similarities, and what you've said since. And no, having an eerie number of things in common with a previous incarnation doesn't doom you to repeat history, but I do think it's a question worth asking. There's no question that Chicago has played great defense, just as there's no question that they played almost as great defense in 2001. My point is that I don't think a team's record alone should be the means for judging the quality of a coach's performance in a season. Many times the players are responsible and not the coach (re: Mike Tice), while other times teams have pretty clearly played over their head. Now I've said that I don't feel particularly good about playing in Chicago again, so it's not as if I'm saying they're a bad team, but I definitely feel like they aren't nearly as strong as their record indicates. As such, I don't think Lovie Smith's coaching job this season is really on par with some of his competitors, but it certainly wasn't bad.

Cool. I asked you to come up with an explanation of how they're different from that lucky 2001 squad and you completely chickened out. I just wanted to make sure that you were full of crap and you came through with flying colors, so thanks. Maybe you were too busy writing multi-million dollar articles for the Greenville Chucklefuck to respond.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20051204_ATL@CAR
Want to tell me that we're a great team or that Fox deserves coach of the year honors?

The amusing thing to me is that neither you or the majority of people who read this post will have any idea how thoroughly wrong you are on that statement.

 

The defense is structured differently from 2001, particularly up front. They don't need a lot of second level help to get pressure. And, at least from what I remember, 2001's secondary was very average, in part because of a dominant run defense.


Yes, it is a fair comparison, and a question worth asking. But I find it unlikely that this edition of the Bears will just disappear next season, given what will likely be a another sub-par NFC North. What happens after that? Who knows.