I can't help recalling all the years Lovie and his (over)reliance on forcing turnovers to be successful is that when they weren't able to force them, they almost always lost, by and large because he didn't care enough - have enough knowledge - about offense to win games when without turnovers.
This was the case so many times, even when the D played well enough, but wasn't able to get any takeaways. That is just so myopic and simply messed up. Turnovers are game breakers, for sure, but watching teams take what the Bears' D gave and still gives them while keeping the ball safe, gobbling up clock AND scoring, even if only field goals, was not a winning model when facing better teams with QB's and coaches who have half a brain.
I so hated watching Lovie smugly excuse and explain away a critical loss due to "we weren't able to win the turnover battle," when the team had no turnovers of its own but didn't create any, either. THAT right there is when your offense is supposed to actually do something to positively influence the game. But a reliance on running the ball and playing defense to get turnovers (via the bend but don't break) is just painful to watch. Did it work magically in '06, sure, all the way to a superbowl appearance. But it didn't work in big games after everyone else in the league took note and simply took the wide open slants, under routes and screens against the soft zone all the way down the field.
One word: Yuck!
