Today Zack Zaidman said Lovie Smith had a better winning percentage with the Bears than Mike Ditka.

It's not even close, really. Mike Ditka is a full game and a half better per season than Smith (which probably would have saved Smith's job this season).

Ditka's winning percentage with the Bears is .631. Smith's was .563.

This was not that difficult to figure out.

Zack may have meant that Ditka's overall winning percentage, which was .560 including his years with the Saints, was lower than Smith's. Unfortunately that is not what he said. What he said came off as though he was acting as propaganda minister for Smith.

ZZ did not say that.

He said it was Ditka's NFL head coaching %

Get your facts straights.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Zach doesn't have those kind of math skills.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

_________________

We all know what Zaidman was getting at. He was comparing one Bears coach to another but skewed the stats to include Ditka's career totals and not just Chicago. Its an irrelevant comparison if Ditka's Nawlins numbers are included. Zaidman has a PhD in ass licking, and it continues even after Lovie's employment was ended.

_________________

Went out for dinner. You need to follow anxious Royce. It is the anti Royce white.

_________________

FYI - I couldn't care less about Mike Ditka. Meatball, I am not.

_________________

And for what it's worth, I like KS's posts, but that might be the Wild Turkey talking.

_________________

_________________

Actually, he said Mike Ditka's winning percentage with the Bears, not NFL head coaching percentage.

Facts were correct.

He was also doing some mathmatical gymnastics in talking about Lovie's win percentages if you took his record against Green Bay out of the equation...you know, the team in their own division who were used as a standard since day 1 of his employment. At the very least, if you take out GB then also take out the Lions to give some accuracy to an average.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Take out every team and Lovie never lost a game.

_________________
You know me like that.

No they weren't. I listened to the segment 2 times. He said his NFL heach coaching percentage.

Take your weak shit out of here.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

His facts were straight, just misleading and stupid.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

ZZ's facts were straight.

Juschill's were not.

I hope he does not have heart issues.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Lovie is undefeated in 2013.

_________________

It's like when Wanny would say, "Aaap, it was just a couple of big plays that beat us, aaap"

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

"Ya know, aaaaaap, if it wasn't for those three 50 yard TD passes in the 4th quarter we might have won!"

AHA, that's what it was.... cuz i distinctly remember zach spouting off about some .673 winning % and posing the question to laurence "whoever you get, are they going to give you better than .673?" and carrying on with his obviously-arbitrary winning % being some sort of bedrock foundation to him being right, which of course was hedged by his hub-esque desire to bookend everything he said with "THERE ARE VERY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES OF THIS"

quality stuff.

_________________