jason

Overall, not bad, I'd be a bit surprised. But drafting a LB that high is ridiculous considering the talent on the team and the deficiencies at other positions.

Scuba diving in Destin, FL. I'm fairly certain, like many here, that the Bears will grab a WR with their second round pick. I'm fairly certain that I'll view it as a desperate selection (unless lots of WRs drop) of about the 7th best WR. This will not make me happy. I'd rather just look at the results, be semi-optimistic, and hope some holes are filled.

With the 37th pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Seahawks select Sean Smith, CB/S, Utah. They have need at Safety and CB...they figure out where to put Smith and watch him go. Pixote and the Bungles...on the clock.

I happen to think Collinsworth is one of the top two or three announcers going in the NFL right now. He has timely information, correct information, and critical analysis. My hands down favorite NFL sportscaster is Jaws; that dude is awesome.

Agreed on everything. Madden has sucked for years. Madden has sucked Favre for years. It's high time both got the F out of football so they can retire together somewhere on a ranch.

1-4? Really? Green Bay = win (tough game, but beat them last year with a lesser team) Pittsburgh = loss (hardest of the first five) Seattle = win (another tough game, but easily winnable) Detroit = win (gimme) Atlanta = win (barely lost last time on a fluke series of events at the end of the game) I can easily see a 4-1 start.

Perhaps all of that is true. Perhaps his bad calls get more focus from me than others. But, you're right, I watch more games than most, and I'm an NFL fan. I typically watch 6 or 7 games each weekend thanks to DVR, and more if you include the flipping around when the Bears aren't playing. By and large, however, it just seems that Turner makes more bad calls than other OCs. Even if one just looks at the opposing team's offensive plays, there are far too many times where the opposing OC makes a call that comes completely out of nowhere and confuses the Bears' defense. How often can anyone say the same for Turner's calls? Very rarely does it look like he completely outclassed an opposing DC and called a game that kept the opposing defense on their heels the entire time.

I only mention the dive play and the Wolfe play because they stood out more than the others. People rarely remember the smaller details when there are bigger problems that steal the spotlight. Put it this way, there are a ton of important air-raids that happened during WWII, but only a handful are known by the majority, and only one really stands out: Pearl Harbor. The point is, people have a natural inclination to remember one incident that can be used as an example, rather than the details along the way. Go back week by week in the forum's archives, and you'll find complaining about plenty of what Turner did...not just those stupid plays. As for the Muhammed example, way to purposefully be obtuse. There are plenty of options that don't have him running the fly pattern, which is a pattern on which he A]hardly ever gets separation, and B]hardly ever gets a positive result. But that play happened several times during several games...for some strange reason. The one part we will agree upon is the part of your post that I highlighted. I agree. However, I just don't think that Turner is all that good at the predicting, adjustments, educated guesses, or probably chess. He just doesn't do what you mention that often, which is why I don't consider him to be a great offensive mind. The offense was horribly predictable the last few years.

I simply disagree. I'd say that the offense was more to blame. They showed a more consistent level of inability than the defense did. The number of 3-and-outs is probably staggering. In previous years the defense could make up for it; but this past year the defense just couldn't do it, they weren't as good as before. I think that Bears' fans are just accustomed to having a garbage offense, and a solid defense. Many are just used to accepting the fact that the offense is essentially the kid who played right field in little league, and the defense has been the pitcher/shortstop hybrid. The pitcher may have been shelled, but the kid in right field still sucked.

I've played, watched, and officiated enough football to recognize a truly boneheaded playcall. That's my main gripe with Turner. He makes too many of them. An OC at the NFL level shouldn't make some of the pee-wee league calls he does. But it's not just about play-calling. It's the lack of adjustment at half, or ever. It's the mismanagement of talent (why send Muhammed deep? why not have your mega-TEs in on passing downs in the red zone? why run a scatback up the pipe while on the goalline against the best run D in the game?). It's the failure to use talent (i.e. Kevin Jones to spell Forte). He just makes far too many bafflingly poor decisions. And on top of that, I've said for several years that I don't think the WRs are as bad as everyone made them out to be. Judging from the impact they make when they leave the Bears, I'd say that I'm on par.

Yeah, because looking at the recap on NFL.com is a true measure of what play was run and what the situation was. That junk is generalized just like playing one of those "guess the next play" games. Run up middle Run left Run right Pass short Pass middle Pass long The only way you'll be able to truly tally those plays would be to watch all the games. And you know damn well it's not just those plays. Turner was a subject of debate nearly every week on this forum. It's not just the FB dive; it's the inconsistent manner in which he calls plays without reason. Sometimes he'll call several good plays in a row, and it looks like he understands how to keep a defense on their heels. Other times he makes several calls in a row that many on here, including me, have claimed we predicted before the snap. That is undebateable; it happens. I don't hate the guy...I just want an OC who understands how to make adjustments and expose an opposing defense. For instance, check out the tape of Griese just ripping the Bears' a new ass and tell me that gameplan wasn't specifically devised for the Bears defense.

Defense: 21st in yards Offense: 26th in yards What don't you understand about that FACT? The Bears lost more games because the offense was worse. The defense may have been a bigger disappointment, but the offense was worse. There were more times that the offense let the team down with the perpetual "3 and out" offensive strategy than the defense buckled. Even if you try to go by scoring, then you have to factor in the 6 TDs the Bears' D/ST scored and it makes the Bears' offensive scoring worse than the defensive scoring anyway. I think you should look at the undeniable stats and quit worrying about the misinterpretation of my verbage (I happen to think the fail photos are funny) and quotes I could care less about.

Um, no, fail. You're saying that the Bears' offense didn't get a chance to make as much yardage because they were in such great situations all the time? If that were the case, then you're essentially saying that their lack of scoring indicates an even larger failing than previously indicated. Afterall, if they had so little field to cover - which is why they "couldn't" get the yardage - then they should surely have scored more points.

Good point. I actually viewed Denver and Chicago as similar situations. I obviously don't like his 20 TOs, but I think that Chicago's defense has a much greater potential to avoid the situations that typically cause a desperate QB to "go for it". IF the Bears' D steps up, and if the Bears' defensive coaches make better decisions than they have, Cutler will be sitting in front more often than not, and won't have to pull out the cannon to save the team. He'll be able to take calculated risks that have a higher percentage of success.

1. Scoring? Are you serious? That's such a weak way to talk about "offensive" production when we all know that a lot of the scores are products of great defense and great special teams (especially in 2006). Yardage is a much truer measure of offensive success because it's based on what ONLY the offense does. 2. The Wolfe play was just the first thing that popped into my mind. Although, like someone else said, I think it was run twice. On the whole, however, it just typifies the "run this play regardless of situation"-mindset that Turner often employs. There were tons more plays that were discussed during the week-by-week discussion, but not only do I not have the games recorded, I don't have the time to prove what was obvious on a weekly basis. 3. The FB dive was not successful half of the time. You'll have to prove that to me. No way. Aside from that, it's not just the play, it's how it's used. It's always used in a horribly predictable manner, and the ball is handed to a FB that has no business running the ball. It's unimaginative, and mostly unsuccessful.

The "dominating defense" was mentioned in connection with the Super Bowl year...not last year. Last year I think the team was overall better than what their record would have people believe, but the combination of injuries, poor coaching, and under performing made them look worse than they were. Although, if I had to divide blame and place it on sections of the team, you better believe that the bad offense would get more than the bad defense.

Same argument I've made elsewhere... That's taking the #7 or #8 WR instead of the #1 OG, or the #2 or #3 Safety.

Same excuse people made for Shoop's dumb ass. When "Shoop and Jauron" brought the Bears' success, it was because of D, then ST, then O. When "Turner and Lovie" brought the Bears' success, it was because of D, then ST, then O. Both years the offense was carried by the dominating defense.

26th total 21st passing 24th rushing Solid?

More of the former, less of the latter. A few notes: -No situational awareness -No clue how to coach a RB screen -Completely ignores the benefits of a rollout -Thinks Garrett Wolfe is an inside, goal-line RB -Keeps fast WRs running short and players like MuhMuh/Booker running deep -Rarely makes noticeable adjustments after half -Calls plays based upon script without consideration to circumstance (i.e. Wolfe play) -Doesn't integrate players that could help offense and spell starters (i.e. Kevin Jones) -Do the Bears even have trick plays? -No capability to keep up with obviously beneficial trends in the NFL -Consistent bottom-of-the-league ranking

FTFY

Agreed on FS. This is almost exactly what I'm saying. Although, I don't really think a pass-rush DE is needed. I think a new scheme that doesn't have them running the exact same semi-circle around the QB every play is needed. It seems that any time the DL actually stunts the opposing offense is caught off guard. There is a reason why scrub QBs are able to step up into the pocket and throw 60 passes of 10-yards or less while destroying the secondary, and it's not all because of the players being unable to get pressure.

As for the OGs vs. WRs, let me put it this way... Would you rather have a huge, delicious apple, or a grape, a raisin, and a couple cherries? Basically, that's how I think of the possibility of a new, great OG like Duke Robinson, and the hodge-podge of guys the Bears currently have at OG (which doesn't mean that none of them can't get better and turn into all-pros). It's essentially the same as the classic fantasy football trade where one person offers a bunch of average stuff for one great players. Everyone knows the one great player is better than the grab-bag. As for the Safeties vs. WRs, I truly believe that the problem with the Bears offensive woes and lack of production has a lot to do with the poor OL play, inconsistent QB play, and borderline incompetent play-calling from the OC. I believe that the WRs the Bears have now will be able to produce good things on the field next year, with Hester and Bennett making great strides. Add that to the great depth at TE the Bears have, all-star pass catching out of the backfield, the belief that they'll still get a FA WR (I think they're playing hardball and being shrewd), and the poor performance in the defensive secondary last year from the FS position, and that makes me think that a stud FS (who would probably start day one) would help the team much more than the 8th best WR who probably won't even beat out the incumbent starters anyway. Regarding the 1yr/2yr plan, perhaps you're right. But I see no reason why the 1yr plan can't work, and I predict that the Bears will make it to the NFC Championship this year.

Seems like this is something that needs to be halted to one round.

I haven't committed myself to drafting a safety. From what I've seen, I'm not terribly impressed by the reach that will be required to grab a WR at our spot. The only committing I've seen is one of success, one of winning. I believe JA and the coaching staff is stocking up for a Super Bowl run this year. I think that if the choice is between 8th best WR and 3rd best Safety at the Bears' selection in the 2nd round, then you choose the best value...which is the Safety. On top of that, I still think that OG and S are stronger needs than WR...so I don't think has to be a WR drafted there.