[CBFF] No "Accounting" For Failure to Resign Smith

[Thomas R. Shannon]

http://bloggeddrain.typepad.com/cbff/2006/07/no_accounting_f.html

 

No "Accounting" For Failure to Resign Smith


One can hardly blame the Bears organization for being a bit cautious about
throwing their money around to sign people to new contracts.  Such
renegotiations represent a commitment which can quickly lead to regret.  No
better example can be pointed to than when they resigned Dick Jauron.

There are parallels in the situation of Lovie Smith to that of Jauron.
Jauron was coming off of one good season, 2001.  It was a season which was
dominated by a very good defense which made up for what can only be
described as an anemic offense. Smith is now coming off of a first round
playoff loss, just as Jauron did.  His one good season was also
characterized by dominating defense and an unproductive offense.  The Bears
have, as  a result of these parallels, refused to sign Smith to a new
contract leaving him as one of the lowest paid coaches in the league.  They
are trading the risk associated with another year of escalating coaches
salaries with the security associated with being able to let him go cheaply
if he falls this season.

What I find to be disappointing is that, by refusing to resign Smith, the
Bears have failed to recognize that the similarities between Jauron and he
end there.  There is, in fact, one word which most describes the difference
between these two coaches and it is the same one which often separates good
from bad coaches in all areas of sport.  That word is "accountability".
How does the coach hold himself , his coaches and his players accountable
for their actions.

By far the worst local example of ignoring accountability comes in the form
of Cubs' manager Dusty Baker.  Baker has never, to my knowledge, taken
responsibility for any failure of the team.  In 2004, the Cubs collapsed
following a playoff appearance the year before.  Did he hold himself
accountable for the teams' play?  Did he even admit that they were
underachieving?  No.  He blamed the media, which had praised him to the sky
in 2003, for raising expectations too high.  The team didn't fail to
perform.  They simply failed to meet the expectations of the media which had
the gall to write that they should at least repeat what they had already
accomplished the year before.  The result of all of this was and is
predictable.  If the manager doesn't hold himself accountable for his own
mistakes, why should the players?  Instead of pointing with the thumb, the
players chose to look outside the team for reasons for failure.  Some chose
to blame the guys  doing the broadcasts, actually calling the booth and
harassing them on at least one plane flight.  The team, of course, has
continued to underachieve and with any luck, the Cubs will have a new
manager next year.

Fortunately Chicago is blessed with coaches that are quite the opposite.
White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen is an excellent example of a coach that
never hesitates to hold both himself and his players accountable in the
press.  Notre dame head coach Charlie Weiss was present as quarterback Brady
Quinn was being interviewed earlier this year.  As Brady answered a question
about his somewhat disappointing performance against Ohio State in the
Fiesta Bowl, Weiss interrupted and said, "He's taking the hit.  The bottom
line on that one is that the head coach has to get the team ready to play.
And that's whose fault it was. If you want to blame someone, blame the head
coach. Because the team was a little flat."  It can be no coincidence that
such a stand up guy inspires his players to be the same way and to hold
themselves accountable for their own play.

Jauron was a stand up guy, too.  No one can say that he didn't hold himself
accountable for the team's performance.  Week after week I listened to him
take calls on his own radio show, taking a beating time after time.  He
stood it all like a saint and took far more than his share of the blame for
the team's performance.


No, Jauron's problem was in not holding those around him to the same
standard that he held himself.  When the offense continued to stumble Jauron
chose to stick by his over matched offensive coordinator, John Shoop, to the
very end.  Instead of holding him responsible for the offense's continued
failure, year after year, he held his loyalty to his coach over loyalty to
the fans and the organization and it ruined him.  His attitude toward his
players is no different.  Now in Buffalo, 11 veterans skipped his May 27
workout.  Jauron's response?  Instead of justly criticizing his veterans for
hurting the team, he simply noted that this meant extra snaps for and more
evaluation of the Bills' young players.

Given the above, the difference between Jauron and Smith couldn't be more
stark.  Unlike Baker, Smith also takes responsibility for the mistakes that
he and his coaching staff make.  But in the end, he also expects those
around him to be competent and, unlike Jauron, failure to be so leads to
consequences.  When the offense stumbled to 32nd in the league in 2004,
instead of giving in to pride and investment in offensive coordinator Terry
Shea, Smith did the right thing by all accounts.  He fired Shea after only
one year.  The Bears coach also didn't hide his clenched teeth when Thomas
Jones and Lance Briggs missed (non-mandatory) workouts, giving Jones and
Briggs the majority of their snaps with the second team during the mandatory
mini-camp in early June.


Unlike his predecessor, Lovie Smith is all about winning and that means,
among other things, that he's all about accountability - for himself, his
coaches and his players.  He will never lose control of his team and he is
very unlikely to inspire them to do anything less than perform to their
maximum.  If they don't, he has shown clearly that they will be replaced.
Smith is a winner and after this season, the Bears will very likely regret
not sewing him up with another contract while they could do so for what will
be a comparably reasonable price.

 

 

We are more ready to try the untried when what we do is inconsequential.
Hence the fact that many inventions had their birth as toys.

            -- Eric Hoffer

://bloggeddrain.typepad.com/cbff/