Ron Turner...

[BearSox]

Personally, from what I have read, seen, and heard about Ron Turner, he's a pretty great offensive mind. His problem is inconsistency, boneheaded/very conservative play calling at times, and lack of weapons on offense.

 

However, that last point might be the biggest reason why Turner has never taken off as an OC. I don't really remember the Bears from 93-96 as I was very young, but IIRC, we didn't have much offensive talent during those years. And those Illini teams he coached didn't have much talent on offense either (but that is kind of his fault considering they were his recruiting classes. Plus, I don't know if this is the case, but he might have given play calling duties to his OC at some point during his tenure there). And so far during the Lovie tenure, he's had really only 1 year with a lot of talent on O, and that was in 06. And when Grossman didn't **** his pants, we had a very potent and explosive offense. Part of it had to do with the D and Hester being a beast, but you can't ignore the fact that our O was very solid and we put up some pretty big numbers at times. Imagine how good that 06 offense would have been with Jay Cutler (not 06 rookie Cutler, but Jay Cutler present) as the QB instead of Grossman.

 

With the more weapons and tools we add on O, the more I think Turner will be willing to open it up. Part of the reason why he might have made so many conservate and boneheaded calls in the past could be because he didn't trust what we had on offense and/or the players just weren't good enough for what Turner wanted to do. I think if we added a bunch of weapons for Turner, we could see him kind of come out of his shell and really surprise us with his play calling.

 

Now the question, what do we need to at add? At 49, don't expect much. Most likely all top 6 or 7 receivers will be gone, and even if Robiskie is there, he isn't a good enough player, IMO, to make a big impact. Right now, IMO, we gotta put all of our focus on bringing in Holt and hope Orlando convinces him that Chicago is the place for him. If we bring in Holt, that will give us so much more flexibility in the draft. We'd basically have our top 3 guys set with Holt, Hester, and Bennett, 3 very solid targets who could do great with Cutler. Also, don't forget we got Matt Forte, Greg Olsen, and Dez Clark, 3 very good targerts... And Olsen could be in for maybe a Tony Gonzalez type of season, IMO. We could also add a few more weapons in the draft. Maybe we could trade down and pick up Ramses Barden. Hell, maybe we go outside the box and draft someone like James Casey in the 3rd or 4th as a H-Back.

 

If we give Ron Turner the weapons, I think he can produce. And if he doesn't (as well as Lovie) and we miss the playoffs again... Welcome Shanahan to the Bears!!!

[azbearsfan]

Personally, from what I have read, seen, and heard about Ron Turner, he's a pretty great offensive mind. His problem is inconsistency, boneheaded/very conservative play calling at times, and lack of weapons on offense.

 

However, that last point might be the biggest reason why Turner has never taken off as an OC. I don't really remember the Bears from 93-96 as I was very young, but IIRC, we didn't have much offensive talent during those years. And those Illini teams he coached didn't have much talent on offense either (but that is kind of his fault considering they were his recruiting classes. Plus, I don't know if this is the case, but he might have given play calling duties to his OC at some point during his tenure there). And so far during the Lovie tenure, he's had really only 1 year with a lot of talent on O, and that was in 06. And when Grossman didn't **** his pants, we had a very potent and explosive offense. Part of it had to do with the D and Hester being a beast, but you can't ignore the fact that our O was very solid and we put up some pretty big numbers at times. Imagine how good that 06 offense would have been with Jay Cutler (not 06 rookie Cutler, but Jay Cutler present) as the QB instead of Grossman.

 

With the more weapons and tools we add on O, the more I think Turner will be willing to open it up. Part of the reason why he might have made so many conservate and boneheaded calls in the past could be because he didn't trust what we had on offense and/or the players just weren't good enough for what Turner wanted to do. I think if we added a bunch of weapons for Turner, we could see him kind of come out of his shell and really surprise us with his play calling.

 

Now the question, what do we need to at add? At 49, don't expect much. Most likely all top 6 or 7 receivers will be gone, and even if Robiskie is there, he isn't a good enough player, IMO, to make a big impact. Right now, IMO, we gotta put all of our focus on bringing in Holt and hope Orlando convinces him that Chicago is the place for him. If we bring in Holt, that will give us so much more flexibility in the draft. We'd basically have our top 3 guys set with Holt, Hester, and Bennett, 3 very solid targets who could do great with Cutler. Also, don't forget we got Matt Forte, Greg Olsen, and Dez Clark, 3 very good targerts... And Olsen could be in for maybe a Tony Gonzalez type of season, IMO. We could also add a few more weapons in the draft. Maybe we could trade down and pick up Ramses Barden. Hell, maybe we go outside the box and draft someone like James Casey in the 3rd or 4th as a H-Back.

 

If we give Ron Turner the weapons, I think he can produce. And if he doesn't (as well as Lovie) and we miss the playoffs again... Welcome Shanahan to the Bears!!!

 

 

Everything that I have read has Robiskie being one of the top players to come right in and produce. Why do you think he wouldn't be able to?

 

As far as Turner goes, I think he does just fine. The thing people can't get over is the "get off the bus running" comment from Lovie years ago. From what I have seen, Turner likes to pass to set up the run. He likes to get it vertical. And you are exactly right when you bring up 2006, the offense was explosive at times(when Rex didn't poop the bed) and we had some decent weapons (BErrian, Jones). I would even bring up Kramer and Conway because he made those guys into top people in the game (Kramer broke records for the Bears and Conway earned a paycheck elsewhere and was never as good as he was with the Bears). People get caught up in the FB draws and stuff, but I think you are right when you say he will open up the playbook. Alot of Turner problem has been the lack of players on his side of the ball. But expectations will run high (a little prematurely IMO, got to give Cutler and the new line time to gel and adjust), so I will be looking forward to this year on offense.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Last year, with 2 playmakers on offense and a terrible OL, we won 9 games and we were a pretty solid offense. I don't think he's a bad OC at all. Sure, he may not be creative, but I do not care. Move the ball and you can be as dull as you want. With the addition of Cutler, I think we'll be a top 8 offense this year.

[Stinger226]

Last year, with 2 playmakers on offense and a terrible OL, we won 9 games and we were a pretty solid offense. I don't think he's a bad OC at all. Sure, he may not be creative, but I do not care. Move the ball and you can be as dull as you want. With the addition of Cutler, I think we'll be a top 8 offense this year.

I think with more O weapons he could be very creative, just hasnt had the opputunity with our team. Good QB, better options, more offensive. I was impressed with him with the fact we got to the Super Bowl a couple of years ago with only one good offensive player, Jones/RB. I know the defense was the key to that year, but still have to have some contributions from an offense to get there.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I think with more O weapons he could be very creative, just hasnt had the opputunity with our team. Good QB, better options, more offensive. I was impressed with him with the fact we got to the Super Bowl a couple of years ago with only one good offensive player, Jones/RB. I know the defense was the key to that year, but still have to have some contributions from an offense to get there.

Exactly. If Harvin is there for us at 49, it gives him another weapon. Cutler-Forte-Hester-Olsen-Bennett?-Harvin is pretty scary.

[jason]

Personally, from what I have read, seen, and heard about Ron Turner, he's a pretty great offensive mind. His problem is inconsistency, boneheaded/very conservative play calling at times, and lack of weapons on offense.

 

However, that last point might be the biggest reason why Turner has never taken off as an OC. I don't really remember the Bears from 93-96 as I was very young, but IIRC, we didn't have much offensive talent during those years. And those Illini teams he coached didn't have much talent on offense either (but that is kind of his fault considering they were his recruiting classes. Plus, I don't know if this is the case, but he might have given play calling duties to his OC at some point during his tenure there). And so far during the Lovie tenure, he's had really only 1 year with a lot of talent on O, and that was in 06. And when Grossman didn't **** his pants, we had a very potent and explosive offense. Part of it had to do with the D and Hester being a beast, but you can't ignore the fact that our O was very solid and we put up some pretty big numbers at times. Imagine how good that 06 offense would have been with Jay Cutler (not 06 rookie Cutler, but Jay Cutler present) as the QB instead of Grossman.

 

With the more weapons and tools we add on O, the more I think Turner will be willing to open it up. Part of the reason why he might have made so many conservate and boneheaded calls in the past could be because he didn't trust what we had on offense and/or the players just weren't good enough for what Turner wanted to do. I think if we added a bunch of weapons for Turner, we could see him kind of come out of his shell and really surprise us with his play calling.

 

Now the question, what do we need to at add? At 49, don't expect much. Most likely all top 6 or 7 receivers will be gone, and even if Robiskie is there, he isn't a good enough player, IMO, to make a big impact. Right now, IMO, we gotta put all of our focus on bringing in Holt and hope Orlando convinces him that Chicago is the place for him. If we bring in Holt, that will give us so much more flexibility in the draft. We'd basically have our top 3 guys set with Holt, Hester, and Bennett, 3 very solid targets who could do great with Cutler. Also, don't forget we got Matt Forte, Greg Olsen, and Dez Clark, 3 very good targerts... And Olsen could be in for maybe a Tony Gonzalez type of season, IMO. We could also add a few more weapons in the draft. Maybe we could trade down and pick up Ramses Barden. Hell, maybe we go outside the box and draft someone like James Casey in the 3rd or 4th as a H-Back.

 

If we give Ron Turner the weapons, I think he can produce. And if he doesn't (as well as Lovie) and we miss the playoffs again... Welcome Shanahan to the Bears!!!

 

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

[jason]

Last year, with 2 playmakers on offense and a terrible OL, we won 9 games and we were a pretty solid offense. I don't think he's a bad OC at all. Sure, he may not be creative, but I do not care. Move the ball and you can be as dull as you want. With the addition of Cutler, I think we'll be a top 8 offense this year.

 

26th total

21st passing

24th rushing

 

Solid?

[jason]

I think with more O weapons he could be very creative, just hasnt had the opputunity with our team. Good QB, better options, more offensive. I was impressed with him with the fact we got to the Super Bowl a couple of years ago with only one good offensive player, Jones/RB. I know the defense was the key to that year, but still have to have some contributions from an offense to get there.

 

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.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

 

Oh so the "dominating defense" got us 9 wins last year.

 

Guess I must have missed that one.

[BearSox]

More of the former, less of the latter. A few notes:

 

-No situational awareness Or players not able to get the job done?

-No clue how to coach a RB screen Either that and/or the position coaches.

-Completely ignores the benefits of a rollout We haven't really had a QB that can rollout.

-Thinks Garrett Wolfe is an inside, goal-line RB We barely ever use Wolfe. If anything, you could say the lack of use of Wolfe as a scat back at times to keep the defense honest.

-Keeps fast WRs running short and players like MuhMuh/Booker running deep I seem to recall us running plenty of deep plays with Hester, and before that Berrian.

-Rarely makes noticeable adjustments after half He's made some very good adjustments in the past. If anyone needs to work on half time adjustments, It's Lovie and the D.

-Calls plays based upon script without consideration to circumstance (i.e. Wolfe play) Most coordinators do call the first 10-20 plays scripted. That way they are able to find out how the opposing team is going to adjust to different formations and players. Also, what Wolfe playing are you talking about?

-Doesn't integrate players that could help offense and spell starters (i.e. Kevin Jones) Think about it, Kevin Jones was inactive for most of last year, and AP really isn't that good.

-Do the Bears even have trick plays? Plenty, but there hasn't been the personal available to run much.

-No capability to keep up with obviously beneficial trends in the NFL He's had the "Wildcat" planned out for a couple years now, but he never had the players to run it.

-Consistent bottom-of-the-league ranking His fault of lack of good players? Name one time when Ron Turner had a bunch of weapons on offense and failed.

[azbearsfan]

The thing you have to take into account about Jason is that he will harp on one particular play as an example of the offenses woes. Wolfe was ran up the gut once, but thats the focal point of the argument. Turner runs the FB dive maybe 10 or 11 times a year. Its successful probably half the time, but the whole offense sucks.

 

And the stats he brought are based on yardage.

 

Scoring we ranked as follows:

 

2008-14th

2007-18th

2006-2nd

 

So the offense has not been as bad as it has been made out to be.

[madlithuanian]

I could be wrong, but I could swear that Wolfe was run up the gut on 2 occassions, both in our own territory. I could be wrong... But also, that's a pretty horrid error. It wasn't even a draw where you try to fool the D. It was a play for Earl Campbell only.

 

Turner also runs that FB play during the only times we're in the red zone and in crucial 3rd downs. It's not like on 1st to catch someone off guard. It's right when it's expected most. If I'm calling it on my couch, there's no doubt the opponenet's D coor is calling it too.

 

Just to clarify, are your stats offensive or overall team scoring?

 

Other than maybe the first half of 2006, the offense has been pretty mediocre. Not bad, not good, but just there. The 14th and 18th ranking pretty much means we're right in the middle...mediocre. 2006 was odd...and I think your numbers may have defensive and ST scoring in there.

 

The thing you have to take into account about Jason is that he will harp on one particular play as an example of the offenses woes. Wolfe was ran up the gut once, but thats the focal point of the argument. Turner runs the FB dive maybe 10 or 11 times a year. Its successful probably half the time, but the whole offense sucks.

 

And the stats he brought are based on yardage.

 

Scoring we ranked as follows:

 

2008-14th

2007-18th

2006-2nd

 

So the offense has not been as bad as it has been made out to be.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

26th total

21st passing

24th rushing

 

Solid?

But you like the Cutler trade even though he had 20 TO's?

 

This offense was repeatedly put into situations were they had to come from behind to win because of this defense, which means desperation plays and forced throws. Call me crazy, but this offense was pretty good last year. Just like our offense, Denver's was put into tough spots with their D never getting them a stop.

[azbearsfan]

I could be wrong, but I could swear that Wolfe was run up the gut on 2 occassions, both in our own territory. I could be wrong... But also, that's a pretty horrid error. It wasn't even a draw where you try to fool the D. It was a play for Earl Campbell only.

 

Turner also runs that FB play during the only times we're in the red zone and in crucial 3rd downs. It's not like on 1st to catch someone off guard. It's right when it's expected most. If I'm calling it on my couch, there's no doubt the opponenet's D coor is calling it too.

 

Just to clarify, are your stats offensive or overall team scoring?

 

Other than maybe the first half of 2006, the offense has been pretty mediocre. Not bad, not good, but just there. The 14th and 18th ranking pretty much means we're right in the middle...mediocre. 2006 was odd...and I think your numbers may have defensive and ST scoring in there.

 

That is overall team scoring. So if you are going to say that special teams and defense skew that, they also skew the yardage stats for the worse. So if we get a 50 yard kick return, that limits the number of yards a team can go.

The point being that depending on what stats you use the offense can appear differently.

 

I agree the offense has been average. But I think the point of the thread is too bring up the fact that we have not had very good talent on offense recently, especially on the line. Think of how many TD passes we have dropped, how many blocks we have missed, and how many open receiver QB have missed. None of that can be placed on the OC. You want to rip him for one or two plays a game? To me that's nitpicking.

 

People, however, rip Turner like he is the worst OC in the league, and clearly he is not that.

 

It will be interesting to see this year. He has a probowl QB, an improved line and an above average RB. The WR are still below average, but with Olsen and the projected improvement of Bennett. So the expectations will be for a much improved offense.

 

I do think some of the SB or bust and Championship game or bust are a bit premature. We should be better for sure, but alot can happen, so I will err of the cautiously optimistic front.

[madlithuanian]

I personally think it's both. We've had average talent on O, and average coordinators on O. Now, thankfully, with Forte, Cutler and Olsen, we are above average on talent. Now, it's time for Turner to put up or get out of town. He can no longer use lack of talent (Other than his own) for reasons why this offense is not explosive...assuming it's not. (Which I think it will be explosive.)

 

Those few playes are what you call "lowlight plays". The few that are carved into the memory banks... There were other poor ones too, but those were amoung the poorest. There were also player error and great plays too! Turner is not a fool, but I wonder how much Smith is telling him to make it vanilla and how much is on his own accord?

 

He's not the worst. But he's not close to the best either. personally, I want better. But he's who we've got, and I hope he gets it done.

 

I expect something good as well...either because or despite the coaching.

 

That is overall team scoring. So if you are going to say that special teams and defense skew that, they also skew the yardage stats for the worse. So if we get a 50 yard kick return, that limits the number of yards a team can go.

The point being that depending on what stats you use the offense can appear differently.

 

I agree the offense has been average. But I think the point of the thread is too bring up the fact that we have not had very good talent on offense recently, especially on the line. Think of how many TD passes we have dropped, how many blocks we have missed, and how many open receiver QB have missed. None of that can be placed on the OC. You want to rip him for one or two plays a game? To me that's nitpicking.

 

People, however, rip Turner like he is the worst OC in the league, and clearly he is not that.

 

It will be interesting to see this year. He has a probowl QB, an improved line and an above average RB. The WR are still below average, but with Olsen and the projected improvement of Bennett. So the expectations will be for a much improved offense.

 

I do think some of the SB or bust and Championship game or bust are a bit premature. We should be better for sure, but alot can happen, so I will err of the cautiously optimistic front.

[jason]

Oh so the "dominating defense" got us 9 wins last year.

 

Guess I must have missed that one.

 

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.

[jason]

The thing you have to take into account about Jason is that he will harp on one particular play as an example of the offenses woes. Wolfe was ran up the gut once, but thats the focal point of the argument. Turner runs the FB dive maybe 10 or 11 times a year. Its successful probably half the time, but the whole offense sucks.

 

And the stats he brought are based on yardage.

 

Scoring we ranked as follows:

 

2008-14th

2007-18th

2006-2nd

 

So the offense has not been as bad as it has been made out to be.

 

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.

[jason]

But you like the Cutler trade even though he had 20 TO's?

 

This offense was repeatedly put into situations were they had to come from behind to win because of this defense, which means desperation plays and forced throws. Call me crazy, but this offense was pretty good last year. Just like our offense, Denver's was put into tough spots with their D never getting them a stop.

 

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.

[jason]

That is overall team scoring. So if you are going to say that special teams and defense skew that, they also skew the yardage stats for the worse. So if we get a 50 yard kick return, that limits the number of yards a team can go.

The point being that depending on what stats you use the offense can appear differently.

 

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.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Here's some evidence that maybe the finger should be pointing more towards Lovie and not Turner????

 

"Not taking anything away from a defensive head coach," Orton said. "That's what they know, that's their passion, and that's what they're going to coach toward. I know we were safe a lot of times in Chicago. There were a lot of game situations where we played it pretty safe and let our special teams and defense win it."

If Orton is struggling now, it's containing his enthusiasm at the prospect of playing for an offensive-minded coach such as McDaniels. The Broncos' system will ask its quarterback to throw oodles of high-percentage passes a game, mostly from the shotgun formation.

 

"Taking nothing away from my days in Chicago, but this is an offense that a quarterback can thrive in," Orton said. "Hopefully, I can take the next step in my career and become a top-level quarterback in this league."

[BearSox]

I wish Orton the best and I hope he thrives in Denver... I'm glad to see that he likes it in Denver.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

 

Um, epic fail (see I can pretend to be a teenager and be snarky too). If you think we lost games last year more because of the offense than defense then this thing is done. You're wrong. Get over it. (Bonus points if you can guess who said that quote).

[jason]

Um, epic fail (see I can pretend to be a teenager and be snarky too). If you think we lost games last year more because of the offense than defense then this thing is done. You're wrong. Get over it. (Bonus points if you can guess who said that quote).

 

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.

[BearSox]

Oh yeah, Stats tell the whole story!!!

 

Anyone with half a brain could realize that it was the D that lost us most of our games last year, not the O.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

 

What dont you understand about FACT? How many games were lost in the fourth quarter BY THE DEFENSE?

 

The Bears did not lose more game last year because of the offense. You're wrong get over it.

 

Even if you take the 6 out that only knocks us down 4 ranks. In 2006, it knocks us from 2nd to 8th. So we had a top 8 scoring offense during our superbowl year with no probowl skill positions. How can that be? Oh maybe the OC had something to do with it.

 

The funny thing about this is you correctly acknowledge that our line has been in shambles for the last couple of seasons which has far more to do with the offensive woes than Turner.

You just have this hard on for Turner for some reason. You pick on a play he has run ~GASP~ twice out of 400+ plays, but fail to give credit when he calls a wide open post against the Eagles that Hester drops.

 

Again, you should concentrate on what actually happened in games rather than yardage totals that can be skewed by special teams, defense, and turnovers.