Nice to see that Green Bay gets to play by different rules than the Detroit Lions...

Packers got lucky. It's a really dumb rule but considering it's happened twice this season, notably once on national TV, McCarthy should know better.

So does Smith's job ride on this game?

Oh wow. 9 yards short.

Bears suck.

It is a weird fluke how good the rookie kickers are this year.

855 (McCoy): Mike McCarthy's horrible coaching means the 10-6 Bears suck? OK.

------

849 (JJ1986): The officials didn't see McCarthy's flag until *after* the booth buzzed the referee to review the play. Since the review had already been initiated, McCarthy's idiotic action "only" resulted in a fifteen-yard penalty, but did not prevent the review from being enacted.

Schwartz's idiotic action came *before* the booth buzzed the referee to review the play on Thanksgiving, so it prevented the review from happening.

It's the way the rule is written, and I'm sure the competition committee will discuss it in the offseason.

That said, it is inexcusable for any head coach to throw a red flag on any scoring play or turnover.

EDIT: In response to 850, the review is most definitely not "automatically" initiated. Rather, the booth has to initiate it manually. It's just like any play that occurs after the two-minute warning or in overtime. "Every scoring play and turnover is reviewed" is the biggest falsehood being spoken by broadcaster this year.

------

853 (McCoy): Maybe. If Emery has a guy in mind, then yes. And if he does, then I'm OK with Smith getting fired.

But firing Smith just to fire him, I can't get on board with that. You're more likely to bring in the next Dick Jauron than the next Jim Harbaugh that way.

I absolutely think Emery needs to bring in a whole new offensive staff and/or philosophy, and by that I mean not letting Smith make the hire.

I'll say this in defense of Lovie: he never had a single game that he coached as poorly as Mike McCarthy's today.

This bitter Lions fan is happy the Bears are staying home. Packers and Vikings never bother me.

One last thing: If Phil Emery waited until the end of the Packers-Vikings game to decide Lovie Smith's fate, then it doesn't matter if Lovie stays or goes: the Bears are screwed for the next several years anyway.

Part of me wants to see the Cowboys win. Part of me wants to see them win and keep the status quo of a mediocre team trending the wrong way. Decisions, decisions.

One last thing: If Phil Emery waited until the end of the Packers-Vikings game to decide Lovie Smith's fate, then it doesn't matter if Lovie stays or goes: the Bears are screwed for the next several years anyway.

Yes. One game shouldn't be the deciding factor. Certainly one by another team.

I'm mildly rooting for the Cowboys because I think Romo is a ridiculously underrated QB and I'd like to see him win a big game when everyone says he can't. On the other hand, I really dislike them.

Romo doing everything possible to enhance his choker rep.

I'm mildly rooting for the Cowboys because I think Romo is a ridiculously underrated QB and I'd like to see him win a big game when everyone says he can't. On the other hand, I really dislike them.

This, but I'm still rooting for Washington. I like Griffin a lot.

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not. Coughlin was likely to get fired in 2011 but the Super Bowl run and eventual win saved his job.

I can't see how ownership and the front office are satisfied with Smith.

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not.

And I think that's an awful philosophy. Emery right now has to know what the strengths and weaknesses of the Bears are. He therefore should have a plan to improve the team. If that means Lovie stays on as head coach, fine. And if that means Lovie goes, also fine.

But the outcome of the Packers-Vikings game has no bearing on what makes the Bears a better team. And Emery needs to make a decision based on what makes the Bears better.

In that sense, the silver lining of the Vikings' win is that Emery will have complete freedom to do what he feels is necessary. He won't be faced with the conventional wisdom that you can't fire a playoff coach.

I can't see how ownership and the front office are satisfied with Smith.

And what I'm saying is that if this statement is true, why would the Packers-Viking game make them satisfied?

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not. Coughlin was likely to get fired in 2011 but the Super Bowl run and eventual win saved his job.

Yes it did. And this year the Giants are the same 9-7 mediocrity they were last year. A decision to fire Coughlin made prior to the last game of the season was justified. But they kept on winning, so they couldn't do it.

Well, the Giants had some impressive wins this year - killed SF and GB - and overall were a far more competitive bunch than last year's regular season team, fwiw. 9-7 ins and outs are more luck than anything else.

fyi

playoff sked set:

Sat:
CIN at HOU, 4:30pm ET
MIN at GB, 8 pm

Sun
IND at BAL, 1 pm
SEA at WAS or DAL, 4:30 pm

And what I'm saying is that if this statement is true, why would the Packers-Viking game make them satisfied?

I have no idea why it would or wouldn't.

The Bears now know their season is over and they won't be going to the playoffs. The ultimate goal of every team and a goal that the Bears thought they were in the running for is now lost to them this year. Thus there is no need to keep Smith around anymore. If the Packers win the Bears go to the playoffs and it would make little sense to fire the head coach a week before they play a playoff game.

Well, the Giants had some impressive wins this year - killed SF and GB - and overall were a far more competitive bunch than last year's regular season team, fwiw. 9-7 ins and outs are more luck than anything else.

Baby steps.

The Bears now know their season is over and they won't be going to the playoffs. The ultimate goal of every team and a goal that the Bears thought they were in the running for is now lost to them this year.

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

If the Packers win the Bears go to the playoffs and it would make little sense to fire the head coach a week before they play a playoff game.

Of course not. But if the Bears choose to fire Lovie now, then I think they should have also fired him had they made the playoffs. Just after it was over, not between the regular season and the playoffs.

EDIT: That said, in a scenario where the Bears came out and outcoached three or four playoff opponents in a row, then the evaluation of Lovie certainly could have changed (the Coughlin scenario). So the playoffs essentially would have bought him one last chance.

And of course, this only applies if Emery doesn't believe Lovie's the right coach moving forward.

------

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

Exactly.

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

And when all of humanity become perfect rational actors you might have a point, well, that and a really cool flying car powered by love and happiness.

Exactly.

How is it exactly when in your own edit you explain why Smith's performance could have changed with a Vikings' loss?

How is it exactly when in your own edit you explain why Smith's performance could have changed with a Vikings' loss?

Smith's performance up until now wouldn't have changed with a Vikings' loss.

It's certainly possible he could reach a new level of coaching were he given three or four more games. He might keep his job and become better in 2013, too.

But if the difference between firing and retaining was simply "did the Bears make the playoffs?", then I think it would be poor reasoning.

And when all of humanity become perfect rational actors you might have a point, well, that and a really cool flying car powered by love and happiness.

So because others are not rational actors, I shouldn't be? That is irrational.

Man, RGIII is fun to watch.

And Kyle Shanahan would intrigue me as the next Bears' head coach.

So because others are not rational actors, I shouldn't be? That is irrational.

I said you might have a point but I don't think you do because playing more games, which is what would have happened had the Packers won, could have changed how ownership and the front office viewed Smith.

Smith's performance up until now wouldn't have changed with a Vikings' loss.

Correct, thus his job was in jeopardy and the only reason he wasn't on the hot seat publicly all season long is because most people figure the McCaskeys are a bunch of cheapskates that won't pay for two head coaches.


But if the difference between firing and retaining was simply "did the Bears make the playoffs?", then I think it would be poor reasoning.

And that wasn't the question put forth. If the Vikings lose then the question would become does Smith's job ride on the Bears winning the WC, then it would become does Smith job ride on winning the next game after that, and then the next one after that, and finally the next one after that.

And that wasn't the question put forth. If the Vikings lose then the question would become does Smith's job ride on the Bears winning the WC, then it would become does Smith job ride on winning the next game after that, and then the next one after that, and finally the next one after that.

Right, and I don't like the game-by-game approach.

Now, if, following the Lions game, Emery's verdict was, "Smith is not the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' loss shouldn't have changed that.

And if the verdict was, "Smith *is* the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' win shouldn't have changed that.

The only way I could see the Vikings-Packers outcome changing things is if the verdict was, "Smith might be the right choice, I'd like to see a few more games, but if not, I'll fire him." In that case, I'd be fine with letting the Vikings-Packer game have any impact on the decision.

And Kyle Shanahan would intrigue me as the next Bears' head coach.

Don't let one year with a great rookie fool you.

When the Redskins win, three rookie QBs will be in the playoffs. Just need Beano to tell us how this is proof that a college team can beat a NFL team.

Right, and I don't like the game-by-game approach.

Now, if, following the Lions game, Emery's verdict was, "Smith is not the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' loss shouldn't have changed that.

And if the verdict was, "Smith *is* the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' win shouldn't have changed that.

The only way I could see the Vikings-Packers outcome changing things is if the verdict was, "Smith might be the right choice, I'd like to a few more games, but if not, I'll fire him." In that case, I'd be fine with letting the Vikings-Packer game have any impact on the decision.

So if they think Smith isn't the right guy for the Bears in 2013 and the Vikings lose and the Bears go to the playoffs and somehow win the whole thing they should still fire him anyway? Why? Doing that would probably be more destructive than simply keep Smith for one more year.

Don't let one year with a great rookie fool you.

Fair enough. That is why I said it would be "intrigu[ing]", though. I'm not familiar enough with him to know if it would be good or bad.

------

So if they think Smith isn't the right guy for the Bears in 2013 and the Vikings lose and the Bears go to the playoffs and somehow win the whole thing they should still fire him anyway? Why? Doing that would probably be more destructive than simply keep Smith for one more year.

Yes, but it's an interesting situation. Smith is a known commodity; he's a very, very good defensive coach who cannot build an offense at all. If Emery had made the concrete decision that Smith was not the best coach for 2013, then that means he has someone in mind who would be able to build a successful offense, which is the most important aspect of the modern NFL.

So if the Bears were to get lucky or hot and win the Super Bowl, that doesn't change those facts. So yeah, I'd still fire him.

Would that actually happen? Absolutely not. There would be way too much external pressure to retain the coach that just won a Super Bowl, even though you firmly believe someone else is more likely to do so moving forward.

Fair enough. That is why I said it would be "intrigu[ing]", though. I'm not familiar enough with him to know if it would be good or bad.

Granted there is no one stat that explains everything, but this should illustrate the impact of RGIII. Washington under Shanahan, rankings of FO efficiency, PFR Expected Points, Advanced NFL Stats EPA:

2010: 25/25/22
2011: 19/12/23
2012: 6/4/3

So if the Bears were to get lucky or hot and win the Super Bowl, that doesn't change those facts. So yeah, I'd still fire him.

Yes it does change the facts. For instance the guy he has in mind might not want to come after the debacle that would be removing Smith. The team itself might very well and probably would be in an uproar that could hurt the Bears on field performance for 2013 as well as influence the offseason transactions.

What the #### playcall?

Yes it does change the facts. For instance the guy he has in mind might not want to come after the debacle that would be removing Smith. The team itself might very well and probably would be in an uproar that could hurt the Bears on field performance for 2013 as well as influence the offseason transactions.

Very true. I'm speaking more from a principle point of view. (EDIT: Well, actually, it doesn't change the facts I laid out. Smith would still have the same flaws, and would not be the right coach moving forward for the same reasons.)

It's why I was saying the silver lining to the Viking win was that Emery now is completely free to go in the direction he believes helps the team in 2013 and beyond.

Romo being Romo.

Thanks for those figures, DA Baracus. You're convincing me Shanahan might not be a very good choice.

To be fair, the QBs before Griffin (McNabb, Beck, Sexy Rexy) were well below average.

Very true. I'm speaking more from a principle point of view. (EDIT: Well, actually, it doesn't change the facts I laid out. Smith would still have the same flaws, and would not be the right coach moving forward for the same reasons.

Yes it does change the facts. If Smith's team wins the Super Bowl it could very well mean he is the right coach moving forward since removing him might make it impossible to install the "right person" for the job and putting someone beside Smith in that job might hurt the Bears' chances at winning more than just keeping Smith there.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there? Their history with Shanahan the Elder was why I was intrigued. Those were some awesome offenses.

Yes it does change the facts. If Smith's team wins the Super Bowl it could very well mean he is the right coach moving forward since removing him might make it impossible to install the "right person" for the job and putting someone beside Smith in that job might hurt the Bears' chances at winning more than just keeping Smith there.

To be pedantic, that's changing the situation, not the facts that were known when the decision was made.

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive. But if the "right guy" still wouldn't come to the Bears, then he wasn't really the "right guy". I'm only a fan of firing Smith if Emery has a known list of guys he wants for good reasons, and knows that he'll be able to hire one.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there?

He was in Houston then. Rick Dennison was the OC in Denver.

To be fair, the QBs before Griffin (McNabb, Beck, Sexy Rexy) were well below average.

This is true, but let's not forget that when he was in Houston he thought John Beck was worth a top ten pick. It's possible that he is actually a very good coach. I don't see it but I'm just some guy with a laptop. Mike McCarthy oversaw the worst offense in the league and then he got hired as a head coach. My point is that RGIII is the horse and Shanahan is the cart, not the other way around. I'll give him credit for installing a good deal of "college plays" into the offense and doing well with it. Ditto Darrell Bevell.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there? Their history with Shanahan the Elder was why I was intrigued. Those were some awesome offenses.

He never coached in Denver. Before Washington he was in Houston and before that Tampa.

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive. But if the "right guy" still wouldn't come to the Bears, then he wasn't really the "right guy". I'm only a fan of firing Smith if Emery has a known list of guys he wants for good reasons, and knows that he'll be able to hire one.

So the standard for deciding to fire someone is that the GM must somehow know that even if the old coach goes out and wins the Super Bowl the right person will still take the job and will still be the best option for the team despite what would happen by firing a Super Bowl winning coach? Does the coach also have to have a last name that sounds like unicorn?

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive.

There could be as many as 10 NFL HC vacancies. I would think this would make a team less likely to fire its head coach since, well, desirable candidates have more options than usual.

There could be as many as 10 NFL HC vacancies.

And three of them will be filled by obviously bad coaches. Let the races begin.

Andy Reid is already prepared to go to San Diego. Man, just replacing with one Norv with another.

Andy Reid is already prepared to go to San Diego.

Good luck with that Andy. Reid supposedly wants that job. The Chargers supposedly do not want him.

Does the coach also have to have a last name that sounds like unicorn?

"What the... That's it! Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!"

Looks like I'm a ####### oracle. Running QBs dominating the NFL. The option completely embarrassing one of the best DEs in football (D Ware). So much for the NFL honks that said these offenses would never work.

It is a weird fluke how good the rookie kickers are this year.

Not really. There is no sport in America where first year pros dominate like they do in football. Every year rookies dominate and handfuls are immediately among the best in the sport at their position. Forget getting acclimated to the new playbook or competition. Just roll the ball out there and watch em dominate.