In defense of the Bears former defensive coordinator

even with Rex Grossman) get stupid all of a sudden?

He might have become complacent, and certainly his dismissal of Ron Rivera smacks of insulating himself. With the five-year guaranteed contract, he might have let up. He knew he didn't have to win in years one and two, and now even three.

And yet, as my esteemed colleague on the SCORE Steve Rosenbloom notes in the Tribune online today, the Bears won two meaningless games at the end of the season. Rosenbloom mentions the meaninglessness to pooh-pooh the victories so that he might put the heads of Phillips, Angelo and Smith on a platter (this is known as a pooh-pooh platter: delicious), but I say unto you that the meaninglessness of the games showed that Lovie's team did not quit on him. You had Johnny Knox and Charles Tillman being carted off the field. The Bears fought to overtime against the Vikings. They beat a game Lions team for a possibly lame duck coach?

Head coaches are there to motivate. And it seems that Lovie gets a lot out of his players. Except Tommie Harris, of course.

As for the Cover 2 defense, I wouldn't know it when I see it. In part because I watch on TV and can't see the whole field. In part because I'm a blogger, not a coach. Lovie has said that the Bears are not in the Cover 2 much of the time anyway.

Besides, is it the scheme that's the problem? Would a better scheme have stopped the Bengals from scoring at will? The Cardinals from scoring at will? The Vikings in the first game and in the second half of the second? The Ravens? Wouldn't switching schemes have been so much rearranging the defensive backs on the Titanic?

Ok, then how about development of players? Chris Williams developed. Frank Omiyale, too. Granted, Matt Forte seemed to take a step back. But Jay Cutler threw eight touchdown passes against one interception in the last two games despite being under tremendous pressure because the defense didn't help him very much.

So why is it bad that Lovie is staying? Is it the three years without a playoff appearance? How did the three-year mark become the standard? Should it be applied in all cases?

It's possible the Bears didn't make the playoffs because they took two huge risks. The first was turning Devin Hester into a receiver. It hasn't worked out yet, and the Bears have lost what could have been one of the greatest players in the history of the game, that is, Devin Hester the return man. That loss is as devastating as the first knee injury that felled Gale Sayers.

But was it wrong to take the risk? No. Most people were salivating over the prospect of Hester as a double threat. (He still may turn out to be a good receiver, with the other Devin on the other side, and with a more in-sync Cutler throwing to them.)

The other risk was Cutler. We expected an instant Super Bowl. For a variety of reasons it didn't happen. But not since the Bears thrilled the nation with the T-formation have the Bears done something that exciting. (Well, outside of the 1985 anomaly.)

So, yes, I'm second-guessing the second-guessers. They all sound so similar. Part of the herd mentality. Even their slurs are identical.

Take Rick1 of the Sun-Times, that is, Telander. He wrote of the Bears honchos news conference the other day: "It actually would be hilarious if it weren't so much like the Wall Street back-patting, excuse-making and bonus-arranging that led to our recent and continued economic meltdown and that seems to be the way to get ahead in layered organizations where you make your own rules."

And then there's Rick2 of the Sun-Times, that is, Morrissey. He wrote: "There's a smugness to the Bears, a disdainful raised eyebrow, a Dick Cheney smirk. Trust us, it says. We know what we're doing. You, in your peasant-like simple-mindedness, don't."

I dunno. Seems to me Cheney has much to smirk about now that President Obama has pretty much adopted even more stringent security, that is, ethnic profiling, than President Bush did. And why is it always Wall Street? But it's never Barney Frank and Congress, which gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

It's always those evil Republican war mongers and  Wall Street types who have all the money. Well, if they do, it might be because they took some risks. As opposed to the media sheep who can't even go out on a limb and use a Democrat in an analogy.

Sure, the McCaskeys could very well be penny-pinchers. On the other hand, the media just might be envious of the money Lovie is getting.