Here's a little rant I've been sitting on and have a few minutes so here it is. I'm tired of the mention of Ditka and/or the "Bear Football" philosophy that is basically synonymous with his style, automatically getting the "you're a mouth-breathing meatball" response from some of our more erudite hosts and some others on the board, who will go nameless.

Maybe some of these people are too young to remember what constituted a good season prior to Mike Ditka or they just forgot. I remember getting extremely excited about a last second field goal for a wildcard spot or the signing of an 80 year-old Alan Page. I understand that Ditka these days is a bit of a caricature but that does not discount his record as Coach Ditka of the Chicago Bears.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate position to say that "I want a coach like Ditka was". Someone who gets a bunch of uglies on the line to move the pile, play an attacking style of defense, run the ball and control the clock, and, hell, maybe grab a facemask here and there. That does not make you a meatball. Well, chew on a couple of these facts -

106 wins
7 of 8 consecutive 10 win seasons
6 different 11+ win seasons
7 playoff appearances
6 Division Championships
3 NFC Championship game appearances
1 Super Bowl Championship

The football cognoscenti among us would have you believe that none of that happened. Well, it did. Now, you may say, "Dr. Ken, that's not the only way to win a championship." To which, I would agree. It is not the only way but, it's the only way that has worked consistently in Chicago since the early 1940s.

I remember what it was like pre-Ditka. It wasn't pretty. Post-Ditka has seen some decent seasons but no consistent success.

To me, you're a meatball if you dismiss the only proven method of success in Chicago football in the last 65 years just because you think it makes you look smart.

I'm not saying we need Ditka, himself, back. But I understand why one might want someone that resurrects that style and, maybe, the fire and passion ? Do you have to yell and scream to be successful? No. Did it help Ditka and those Bears teams succeed? I don't know. I doubt it but that was a fiery group. McMichael throwing chairs through the wall is a famous story those Bears tell prior to a Super Bowl ass-whippin'. I'm not saying it helps but I won't say it doesn't.

This isn't my report on why we should fire Lovie. I don't want to fire Lovie. I'm just saying I understand why people say we need "a Ditka" and that style of football back. It's a legitimate position and one that people might want to give more consideration than the typical dismissive response.

_________________
You know me like that.

Good work as always Dr. Ken.

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

Ditka had more talent than any coach in the 80s and could only turn it into one championship. His teams were consistently outcoached by the other NFC "legendary" coaches: Gibbs, Parcells, Walsh. He ran a piss-poor offense despite the fact that offense was supposedly his expertise. All while acting like an embarassment.

Sorry, Ken. No sale.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

His teams were among the elite in the NFL year in and year out. He has a proven record of consistent success.

He was not the greatest coach of his generation and he had his playoff failures.

But, as a friend of his kind of said, all he did was win football games. His teams and those years are the best of the past 70 years.

_________________
You know me like that.

Also, those 49er teams had some talent and a couple of those Giant teams. McMahon could never stay healthy and they didn't have a QB.

The record still stands.

_________________
You know me like that.

For the record, let it be known that I don't like it when my food smiles at me...it's like it knows something I don't...

Um, I think the 49ers might have something to say about that.

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

I never saw those great teams. I'm only 22. So maybe my memories of Ditka are skewed. I remember the Ditka that sucked with the Bears and then subsequently sucked with the Saints. The Ditka that traded his draft away for Ricky Williams. That Ditka.

But here's the most damning thing: what is Ditka's mark on football? Each of those three other big-time NFC coaches substantially changed the face of NFL football. Parcells was reponsible for the rejuvenation and renovation of the 3-4. Walsh obviously completely overhauled the way offense was run, to the point that literally every offense in the NFL today is a Walsh derivative. Gibbs likewise built upon that and was well known as a key developer of the west coast system.

What will Ditka's legacy be? The 46 defense wasn't his. He was the Brian Billick of his day, except that Billick actually know something about offenses and accomplished something as a coordinator. Ditka did nothing of the sort. The NFL, by adoption, has determined that there was some value-added in what those other coaches were doing. They've done nothing of the sort with Ditka.

Does he deserve some credit for winning? Absolutely. Is he the worst coach of all time? No. Am I doing the funny Steve Stone "ask myself questions" thing? It appears I am. But only in Chicago will Ditka be remembered as a good coach, and rightfully so; the story of NFL football can be written entirely without reference to him.

P.S. The Bears had more talent than those 49er teams.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I dunno...methinks the team with the HOF QB and WR is more talented...

How do you figure that?

Montana...Rice...Craig...

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

Montana was the greatest system QB that ever played the game. There's a ton of value in that, but without Walsh, Montana isn't a HOFer.

Rice is Rice, the greatest WR of all time, but Craig is another guy who benefitted from being on the cutting edge of the offensive revolution.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

OK. I don't say he is history's greatest coach. My point is that his style, basic as it is, won a bunch of football games and dominated his division for a decade. They hadn't done it before in 40 years and haven't done it since. People look back on it fondly for a reason and the reason is legit.

But your perspective is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what he did for football in this town. People have expectations now. They never did before.

Not to get into a big thing on the Niners but they were as talented offensively as the Bears were defensively and their D was more talented than our O.

McMahon/Fuller
Gault
McKinnon
Suhey
Payton/Anderson

Montana
Rice
Craig
Rathman
Taylor

That's not even funny.

_________________
You know me like that.

Complete and utter BS.

The 49ers were loaded with talent both on O and D.

All the Bears had was Payton and some guys on D.

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

On defense they sure did. On offense they sure didn't.

_________________

But you're missing my point. What did he do? If he did anything worth mentioning, then it would still be around in the NFL. It's not just me; NFL coaches everywhere have determined that whatever schemes or planning Ditka added weren't worth saving. Even his style is obsolete; the last coach that tried to come in and do the whole "I'm gonna be a tough guy and scream at you" thing was Marty Morninweg, and he was laughed at by the players in Detroit. All the rest of the "tough guy" coaches like Parcells and Cowher are more just guys that carry a big stick. If screaming at grown men makes them play better football, every coach in the NFL disagrees.

And why does Ditka get credit for the Bears becoming a winner? He didn't have a hand in aquiring much, if any, of the talent.

And I think "some guys on D" is quite an understatement.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

The point is that other than Payton, all the Bears talent was on D. Yes, it was loaded with talent.

But the 49ers had a lot of talent on D too and their O was loaded with talent.

When you have a HOF QB and WR that can both be argued to be the best ever at their position, the case is closed on talent.

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

So, he doesn't get any credit because he didn't assemble the players?

He utilized one of the best lines in football to run the ball, consistently. HE won 6 division championships. Did he do it with mirrors? I just gave you a list of what he accomplished. Does he not get credit because he didn't reinvent the game?

He was a leader. I think he organized his team, motivated them. The team obviously practiced well and executed their game plan on a consistent basis.

So, should the fans of Chicago not be excited because he only made the playoffs every year, won the division every year and only won one Super Bowl? That's not enough success to remember fondly and want to recreate. We should be in favor of something completely different than that.

_________________
You know me like that.

The Bears OLine was very good back then too, but other than Payton they had no playmakers on offense.

I suppose anybody can make a good argument that the Bears should have won at least one more Super Bowl. But the fact is that Ditka brought home one more Lombardi trophy than any coach before or after him. Many people consider the '85 Bears the greatest NFL team ever, or at the very least in the top 2 or 3 ever. But the head coach gets little or no credit from you IB? Thats very strange.

_________________

He doesn't get much credit because he didn't assemble the talent, no. But OK. He won a lot of games, division championships, and a Super Bowl. That's better than a lot of coaches. But if you're looking for a coach, you're not just looking for a guy that wins with superior talent (and no one can dispute that the Bears had better talent than those Central teams, or than the teams they beat in the 1985 season- and note he lost to Shula.)

I guess I can even go so far as to say that he was the best coach the Bears had from the time George Halas lost a grip on how to win football games until at least Jauron. I don't think that's saying all that much though.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

This is a good point, the OL was really good. But so was the 49er line.

I think you can make a good case that the Bears should have won at least one more Superbowl back then. But I do not think it can be argued that the Bears had more talent than anyone else during that time.

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

If the Bears had a better QB, they probably would have won 3 SBs in the 80s. If McMahon had stayed healthy, they probably would have won another one.

_________________

I really don't think you are giving Ditka enough credit, IB. He did not reinvent the game. His schemes were basic smash-mouth football. But he didn't just win for a couple years. He won from 1983 through the 1991 season with different running backs, different QBs, different personnel altogether. He won 11 games in 1991 with John Roper, Lemuel Stinson and the boys.

He wasn't a genius but his style was effective and proved to be a consistent winner in the environs of Chicago. I cannot accept that people that are interested in recreating that style should automatically be deemed meatballs.

As for the "fire", and its ineffectiveness in today's game, that isn't really my point as much as the football side but I'll say this. Our esteemed FavreFan can correct me if I am incorrect. But, as I understand it from my friends in the military, drill sergeants often are a bit fiery. I assume they are that way for a reason (because it is effective). I imagine also that there are some that cannot pull it off and are ineffective. Now, before you tell me that football is not the military, I understand that. My point is that, by nature, it can be effective if executed by an authority figure that utilizes it correctly.

_________________
You know me like that.

If Ditka and Ryan could've been at least professional with each other, the Bears could've won another Super Bowl.

Thank you, Doc.
Anyone who lived through the Pardee and Armstrong eras during the 70's, would have no choice but to admire Da Cotch.
You young fucks can piss off. I am a proud meatball.

_________________
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.- Eric Hoffer

I just caught this thread, and to be honest, its one of the best ones Ive read on my hiatus, if not the best. Ken, you are absolutely correct. There were 12 Drill Sgts in my Company, 3 that were in charge of my platoon. 9 of the 12 were as fiery as they come, and not to be fucked with in any sense of the phrase. 1 of them was by far the easyiest going of the bunch. I liked him the most, and respected him as a person and even for his military accomplishments, but we definitely got alot more done under the other DS's because of their constant direction/criticism/oversight. This might be similar to the whole Jimmy Carter was too nice a guy to be a good president idea, not sure.

When it comes to this thread, I definitely agree with Ken here. I think its ludicrious to say the Bears had more talent than the 49ers for the decade, and or the Giants for latter part of the decade. They had an outstanding D Coordinator, a very talented defense, and the best RB of all time. They had(sorry guys) a very overrated QB from the games Ive seen, and no stud WR(Gault was fast but not great). Again, thats from the games Ive seen. They had a very good overall team for the decade, and I have said and will continue to say that Ditka had become very underrated with time because of the caricatureness of his public persona. I think the 1985 Bears team was not the most talented football team of all time, but it was the best. In a 64 team March Madness style tourney, I would pick them as the favorites, although this is obviously fantasy-driven and noone knows what would happen.

IB - Montana being the best system QB of all time is complete BS. Im sorry, but you need to start realizing that football is played by humans, not robots. There is such thing as clutch and folding under pressure. Montana is the best QB of all time, and has all the crentials to back it up. Dan Marino was nowhere near as good a QB, although he was great too. Theres really no argument to be made IMO. I think its incredible that you would pick any other QB to runa 2 minute drill down by 4 with your life on the line. Lets not act like he was Ken Dorsey.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I knew you were a meatball, Reason, but not for these reasons. Thanks, FF.

As for Ditka offensive innovations, Gridiron probably can answer that better. But, believe it or not, the use of Fridge Perry the way he did was innovative. I know Walsh put Guy McIntyre back there but Ditka took it to another level and to some extent that methodology is still used in goal-line situations today. However that impact is far from "game-changing".

But, I'd say the big one that I think of, and maybe he shouldn't be credited but my historic knowledge isn't extensive, is the use of Gentry as a third-down change of pace back. I don't recall such extensive use of a specialized third down back as he used Gentry prior to that. There probably was one but I'm not aware of it. You saw it later with Meggett in NY and others but Ditka using Gentry predates that.

That's not to say Ditka was an offensive genius. His genius is confined in the creation of fine sawza my friends.

_________________
You know me like that.

To those who argue that the Bears should have won more Superbowls, I would argue that they may well have won again with the 1986 team if McMahon didn't go down prior to the playoffs, to be replaced by Mike Tomczak and/or a very green Doug Flutie. Then 1987 was the strike year. So there were some events out of Ditka's control.

And IB, I always enjoy reading your thoughts, but in this case, as you readily admit, you didn't personally witness that era. The Ditka you see today, and saw in New Orleans, is a far cry from the Ditka of the mid-80's. It's not just that he yelled a lot and threw his chewed-up gum at people. I think you might have a different opinion if you actually were around for that era.

At the very least, he was the right person in the right place at the right time. There were people (and probably still are) who think Phil Jackson isn't that good of a coach and that anyone would have won six titles with the 90's Bulls. But I think there are precious few instances where you can legitimately say a team's coach had a minimized impact on their team's success.

Doc Rivers anybody?????

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I should point out that I don't think that the mid-80s version of Ditka was an awful coach. I think he was probably somewhere around average for his time. Like I said before, average towers over the sorry list of coaches from Halas to Jauron, including the latter and much of the tenure of the former.

That being said: I've argued before, and I'll argue in the future, that the value of a coach can't be measured by winning percentage; it has to be based on what value the coach adds above some theoretical coach of completely average ability. This is, when you think about it, approximately how we measure the value of every player on the football field. Coaches shouldn't be any different.

Now, when you think about what coaching "value-added" there was on the team, you almost certainly don't think about the offense. Usually people talk about the 46 defense or whatever, or just talk about how much talent there was on the defensive side of the ball. To be sure, lots of decent coaches get by without revolutionizing the game. And Ditka may have been in a bad situation- think of someone like Billick in Baltimore. But at least with Billick, you have something to point to with the offensive schemes and production in Minnesota. Ditka simply doesn't have that.

But even if we leave all that aside, I think when most people think of Ditka, they're not thinking of tactics. They're thinking of an attitude, a demeanor, or whatever else. When they day "what we need is a coach like Ditka", they're probably thinking of that. I am highly, highly skeptical that any of that attitude-type stuff mattered in the sightest, but I'm willing to assume, just for the sake of argument, that it did; I'll even go so far as to grant the assumption for this argument that these attitude type determinations were the deciding factor between winning and losing the Super Bowl.

And after all those assumptions, I'd make the simple retort: what would that matter in 2009? The NFL, and the NFL player, is a completely different creature than in 1985. Do you know what would happen if a Ditka-type coach came in and started throwing chairs and all the rest of it? They'd laugh at him. That technique is simply not an effective organizational tool. The few examples of coaches who have tried this recently have been laughingstocks in their locker rooms. The old-school guys that continued to have success, like Parcells, toned down their antics as the years went on. Even if Ditka was effective in 1985, that's no more reason to pine for a Ditka-type coach in 2009 than it is a reason to want to run the wishbone or T formation because it was so successful once. The premise- Ditka was a good coach!- doesn't lead to the conclusion- we need another Ditka!- even if you accept the premise.

As for whether Montana was a system QB: he was a creature of the west coast offense when the WCO didn't mean "what everyone runs". There's a lot of value in that, but if he doesn't have that system, his statistics don't look nearly as good. "System QB" doesn't have to be the pejorative you assume it is.

There's this weird determinism that exists in the minds of sports fans, where everything that was must have been, like it was preordained. We want to write maudlin stories into a series of difficult to decipher events. Is Tom Brady more "clutch" if Asante Samuel doesn't drop a sure INT? Is Peyton Manning a "choker" if he plays on a team with even an average defense for the first half of his career? Were Montana and Rice the two best players at their position all-time by coincidence? It's difficult to answer these questions because there's no null hypothsis, or at least no way to test it. But it's unfortunate that the fact that you can't replay history means that sports fans adopt this pseudo-Calvinism whereby certain athletes were forechosen as promised sorts.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Fine, I resemble that remark.

_________________
We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.- Eric Hoffer