Ron Turner...

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

I already addressed this in the other post. But to reiterate, in 2006 we were still a top 8 scoring offense even without counting the scores from d and special teams. Damn what a crappy OC.

 

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.

 

Dude thats the only thing that ever pops into your mind. That and the dreaded FB dive. Those two plays counted for 2.5% of our total play calling yet you want to use them as the sample that shows Turner is terrible.

 

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.

 

Oh so you are allowed to use something that pops to the top of your head and you dont have time to prove what you say, but I have to prove it, huh?

 

OK tough guy. In the Indy game it was run twice. The first time on a 4th and 1 for four yards=success. Second time on a second and 1 at the goalline for a TD= success.

2 for 2 so far.

 

Carolina game. First time--a 3rd and 1 for six yards=success!!! Second time--1st and goal for a TD=Success 3rd time--4th and one for 0 yards=fail

4 for 5 now (BTW the defense lost the lead in the 4th quarter in this one)

 

TB it wasn't run at all (But the defense lost this one and let Griese throw for 407...oops)

 

Philly onetime on a 3rd and 11 for one yard=fail

 

4 for 6 so far

 

Didn't run it against Detroit (But I saw that Wolfe was run off the ends for gains of 3, 2, 3, 4, and -3. And he was run up the middle for 3. WAIT HOW CAN THIS BE. Wolfe ran to the outside yet wasn't any more effective than when he ran up the middle. DAMN OC!!!)

 

Ran it once against Atl for a fail.

4 for 7 and another game the defense lost in the fourth quarter.

 

Minny game it wasn't run.

 

Second Detroit game First time--first and 6 at the goalline was run for 5 yards--didn't score but a five yard gain on first down I think is a success!! second time--3rd and 4 for 3yards fail

5 for 8

 

Tenn First time 2nd and 1 run for 3 yards=success!! Second time 1st and seven at the goalline run for 2yards=fail

6 for 9

 

GB game wasn;t run

 

Stl game wasn't run

 

2nd minny game run once for a fail

6 for 10

 

Jac game wasn't run

 

NO game wasn't run

 

2nd GB game wasn;t run

 

Hou game wasn;t run

 

So looks like 6 for 10 for that one and even if your dont want to count the 5 yard gain that didn't get a first its still 50% effective.

 

Thanks for playing though.

[nfoligno]

Hey Jason. I disagree often enough w/ Turner, but I just do not understand the hate you send his way.

 

I don't think anyone is saying he is great, but at the same time, I just feel you do have to look at what he had to work w/.

 

We have spent our money, and used up most of our luck, on defense. We have done so little over the years to upgrade on offense. We continually added QBs who were between average and pathetic. We added poor WRs, one after another. OL? Have you and I not raved on this one long enough. About the only area we added talent was RB. TJ, Forte, and I would even say to some extent Benson. But w/ the QB and WRs we had, those RBs always faced stacked boxes, and did so behind an awful OL.

 

So while you may not want to give him the benefit of doubt, I would simply argue he hasn't done as awful as you think considering how little he had to work with. This is the year we find out, as we finally spent resources (and hopfully we are not done) on the offense. Turner now has:

 

A franchise QB.

A franchise RB.

An OL which may not be what either of us wanted, but at the same time is a massive upgrade from last year.

A great duo at TE.

 

No more excuses. We have the talent to have a pretty damn good offense, and I would argue that if we could land Holt, a top 10 offense. Will we see that? Who knows. But as much as this is a make or break year for Lovie, I think it is also for Turner who is out of excuses.

 

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]

Hey Jason. I disagree often enough w/ Turner, but I just do not understand the hate you send his way.

 

I don't think anyone is saying he is great, but at the same time, I just feel you do have to look at what he had to work w/.

 

We have spent our money, and used up most of our luck, on defense. We have done so little over the years to upgrade on offense. We continually added QBs who were between average and pathetic. We added poor WRs, one after another. OL? Have you and I not raved on this one long enough. About the only area we added talent was RB. TJ, Forte, and I would even say to some extent Benson. But w/ the QB and WRs we had, those RBs always faced stacked boxes, and did so behind an awful OL.

 

So while you may not want to give him the benefit of doubt, I would simply argue he hasn't done as awful as you think considering how little he had to work with. This is the year we find out, as we finally spent resources (and hopfully we are not done) on the offense. Turner now has:

 

A franchise QB.

A franchise RB.

An OL which may not be what either of us wanted, but at the same time is a massive upgrade from last year.

A great duo at TE.

 

No more excuses. We have the talent to have a pretty damn good offense, and I would argue that if we could land Holt, a top 10 offense. Will we see that? Who knows. But as much as this is a make or break year for Lovie, I think it is also for Turner who is out of excuses.

 

Now that is a point I can agree with. He can't claim he didn't have the weapons this year. The ball is in his court, just as it is with Lovie by him taking back the defense.

 

The only one with a get out of unemployment free card is JA because of his moves IMO.

[jason]

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.

 

I already addressed this in the other post. But to reiterate, in 2006 we were still a top 8 scoring offense even without counting the scores from d and special teams. Damn what a crappy OC.

 

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.

 

Dude thats the only thing that ever pops into your mind. That and the dreaded FB dive. Those two plays counted for 2.5% of our total play calling yet you want to use them as the sample that shows Turner is terrible.

 

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.

 

Oh so you are allowed to use something that pops to the top of your head and you dont have time to prove what you say, but I have to prove it, huh?

 

OK tough guy. In the Indy game it was run twice. The first time on a 4th and 1 for four yards=success. Second time on a second and 1 at the goalline for a TD= success.

2 for 2 so far.

 

Carolina game. First time--a 3rd and 1 for six yards=success!!! Second time--1st and goal for a TD=Success 3rd time--4th and one for 0 yards=fail

4 for 5 now (BTW the defense lost the lead in the 4th quarter in this one)

 

TB it wasn't run at all (But the defense lost this one and let Griese throw for 407...oops)

 

Philly onetime on a 3rd and 11 for one yard=fail

 

4 for 6 so far

 

Didn't run it against Detroit (But I saw that Wolfe was run off the ends for gains of 3, 2, 3, 4, and -3. And he was run up the middle for 3. WAIT HOW CAN THIS BE. Wolfe ran to the outside yet wasn't any more effective than when he ran up the middle. DAMN OC!!!)

 

Ran it once against Atl for a fail.

4 for 7 and another game the defense lost in the fourth quarter.

 

Minny game it wasn't run.

 

Second Detroit game First time--first and 6 at the goalline was run for 5 yards--didn't score but a five yard gain on first down I think is a success!! second time--3rd and 4 for 3yards fail

5 for 8

 

Tenn First time 2nd and 1 run for 3 yards=success!! Second time 1st and seven at the goalline run for 2yards=fail

6 for 9

 

GB game wasn;t run

 

Stl game wasn't run

 

2nd minny game run once for a fail

6 for 10

 

Jac game wasn't run

 

NO game wasn't run

 

2nd GB game wasn;t run

 

Hou game wasn;t run

 

So looks like 6 for 10 for that one and even if your dont want to count the 5 yard gain that didn't get a first its still 50% effective.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

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.

[jason]

Hey Jason. I disagree often enough w/ Turner, but I just do not understand the hate you send his way.

 

I don't think anyone is saying he is great, but at the same time, I just feel you do have to look at what he had to work w/.

 

We have spent our money, and used up most of our luck, on defense. We have done so little over the years to upgrade on offense. We continually added QBs who were between average and pathetic. We added poor WRs, one after another. OL? Have you and I not raved on this one long enough. About the only area we added talent was RB. TJ, Forte, and I would even say to some extent Benson. But w/ the QB and WRs we had, those RBs always faced stacked boxes, and did so behind an awful OL.

 

So while you may not want to give him the benefit of doubt, I would simply argue he hasn't done as awful as you think considering how little he had to work with. This is the year we find out, as we finally spent resources (and hopfully we are not done) on the offense. Turner now has:

 

A franchise QB.

A franchise RB.

An OL which may not be what either of us wanted, but at the same time is a massive upgrade from last year.

A great duo at TE.

 

No more excuses. We have the talent to have a pretty damn good offense, and I would argue that if we could land Holt, a top 10 offense. Will we see that? Who knows. But as much as this is a make or break year for Lovie, I think it is also for Turner who is out of excuses.

 

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.

[jason]

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.

 

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.

[nfoligno]

One. One thing I believe Turner does is try to "out-smart" other teams. Frankly, that is common. Your facing the #1 run defense and #32 pass defense. The expectation is to pass, so you run the ball, which the #1 run defense instantly stuffs. Thus he tries to out smart the DC, but in the process looks like a fool.

 

W/ that said, I think you have a bit of bias watching bears games vs others. I assume you to be a NFL fan as opposed to only a bear fan. I can not remember a game when I didn't think the OC or DC made awful calls. Regardless who the coach is, bad calls are made. Turner is w/o question no exception. You would argue he makes more bad calls than others. I would argue that as a bear fan, Turner's questionable calls simply stand out more. Other teams fans would likely argue their coaches makes more boneheaded calls.

 

Honestly, I don't want to get into a situation where I am making a huge defense of Turner. I personally am not a huge fan. More than in game adjustments, I felt his in-season adjustments were poor. There were plays that initially worked, but other teams adjusted, and Turner did not adjust to the adjustment. That was among my bigger issues.

 

Two. Personally, i think you make a bit much out of the WR issue. Have some receivers seen more success than in Chicago? Sure. But I do not think it is (a) on the scale you make our and ( due to issue more than just the OC (better QB, better OL, better compliment WR, etc).

 

 

 

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.

[BearSox]

Now that is a point I can agree with. He can't claim he didn't have the weapons this year. The ball is in his court, just as it is with Lovie by him taking back the defense.

The only one with a get out of unemployment free card is JA because of his moves IMO.

And Toub.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

Sorry dude. The only time the fullback ran the ball last year was on the fullback dive. Doesn't matter when and where it was. I said it worked half the time and proved it like you said.

 

 

I think thats great that you have played, watched, and officiated games. Good for you. But when you call an offense, there are so many factors that go into the play call. You watch game film to try and predict what will work against a certain front. You try and look at their adjustments during a game and make a educated guess on what will work in certain situations. It truly is a game of chess. Then there is the execution factor. You can make a good call, but if your third string tight end lets a guy go free on an inside rush and blows up the RB in the backfield then it looks like a "boneheaded" call to Joe Fan.

 

Alot of your criticisms are baffling as well. Why run Moose deep? Because if all you have him do is five yards hitches it becomes predictable. Did you not see him run Hester, Berrian, Davis, Bradley, Olsen, Lloyd, Booker deep? Its every person who plays in that spot in the offense. And, again, you keep bringing up the Wolfe up the middle. ONE PLAY out of 430+. Perhaps he thought that they figured that Wolfe would be running out side since he is small and tried to pull one over on them. It didn't work. Thats why it didn't become a staple in the offensive gameplan. Dude get over it already.

 

The offense and the play calling simply were not as bad as you make them out to be.

[jason]

Sorry dude. The only time the fullback ran the ball last year was on the fullback dive. Doesn't matter when and where it was. I said it worked half the time and proved it like you said.

 

I think thats great that you have played, watched, and officiated games. Good for you. But when you call an offense, there are so many factors that go into the play call. You watch game film to try and predict what will work against a certain front. You try and look at their adjustments during a game and make a educated guess on what will work in certain situations. It truly is a game of chess. Then there is the execution factor. You can make a good call, but if your third string tight end lets a guy go free on an inside rush and blows up the RB in the backfield then it looks like a "boneheaded" call to Joe Fan.

 

Alot of your criticisms are baffling as well. Why run Moose deep? Because if all you have him do is five yards hitches it becomes predictable. Did you not see him run Hester, Berrian, Davis, Bradley, Olsen, Lloyd, Booker deep? Its every person who plays in that spot in the offense. And, again, you keep bringing up the Wolfe up the middle. ONE PLAY out of 430+. Perhaps he thought that they figured that Wolfe would be running out side since he is small and tried to pull one over on them. It didn't work. Thats why it didn't become a staple in the offensive gameplan. Dude get over it already.

 

The offense and the play calling simply were not as bad as you make them out to be.

 

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.

[jason]

One. One thing I believe Turner does is try to "out-smart" other teams. Frankly, that is common. Your facing the #1 run defense and #32 pass defense. The expectation is to pass, so you run the ball, which the #1 run defense instantly stuffs. Thus he tries to out smart the DC, but in the process looks like a fool.

 

W/ that said, I think you have a bit of bias watching bears games vs others. I assume you to be a NFL fan as opposed to only a bear fan. I can not remember a game when I didn't think the OC or DC made awful calls. Regardless who the coach is, bad calls are made. Turner is w/o question no exception. You would argue he makes more bad calls than others. I would argue that as a bear fan, Turner's questionable calls simply stand out more. Other teams fans would likely argue their coaches makes more boneheaded calls.

 

Honestly, I don't want to get into a situation where I am making a huge defense of Turner. I personally am not a huge fan. More than in game adjustments, I felt his in-season adjustments were poor. There were plays that initially worked, but other teams adjusted, and Turner did not adjust to the adjustment. That was among my bigger issues.

 

Two. Personally, i think you make a bit much out of the WR issue. Have some receivers seen more success than in Chicago? Sure. But I do not think it is (a) on the scale you make our and ( due to issue more than just the OC (better QB, better OL, better compliment WR, etc).

 

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.

[madlithuanian]

I don't deny the rankings...but the defense really failed more than the offense. But maybe that's about putting things in perspective. Did you think the offense would be any good? Did you think Forte would be that good? I sure didn't! So, by virture Orton wasn't turning the ball over like Grossman, and that Forte was much much better than Benson...they exceeded expectation. However, on the D-side, we expect our big stars who all got paid big bucks to kick butt. They in fact, got their butts kicked.

 

Maybe the D was technically better, but in all reality they were probably the biggest disappointment and failure of any team at any category last year.

 

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.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

Yes but if you are trying to make a point regarding general's or military stats either way, you wouldn't just look at one raid or battle.

So you back your point up with 2% of the plays and tell me to go look up the rest? Sorry.

 

Plus you are not counting possible good calls that were not executed by the players: drops, bad routes, badly thrown balls, bad blocking.

If anything, the point that Turner was hampered by the lack of talent is strengthened by the lack of execution.

 

 

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.

 

Again. You need to run certain things to keep defenses honest. Plus you dont take into consideration things like Moose droppings, underthrown balls, bad reads by the QB (perhaps the slot was running open underneath due to Moose running flys) and you dont acknowledge plays where the Berrians and Hesters go deep. To hear you tell it, he just runs slower guys deep and runs faster guys short, which is certainly not the case. I can see why you would say it that way because that sort of slant backs up your point, but its simply not true.

 

 

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.

 

Yes but unless you have the scouting reports, gameplans, etc, you dont know what the thought process is. One thing that is said is that he tries to outthink himself which show that he is predicting and making educated guesses. Its tough to argue both ways, that he is too simple yet he gets too complex by outthinking himself.

The point that Bearsox was trying to make is that the offense and Turner's playcalling has been hampered by poor talent on offense. You would actually agree somewhat with this as I have read your criticisms of the line. Its tough to call a good game or a diverse game when your line can't get the job done. But you put a talent like Forte at RB and suddenly some of the running plays look very nice.

You critisize the lack of rollouts, but did you seriously want Rex and Kyle on the move like that? Plus the fact that in the NFL, unless you have a good play action on the play, it actually makes the defenses job easier since it cuts down on the amount of space they have to cover.

 

The bottom line here is that I dont consider Turner to be some great guru of offense. He is not as bad as you make him out to be and I think there is merit to the case that his weapons have not been that good.

Again we will see this year. We will have a better OL and a probowl QB. If the offense regresses then I think a change will be made.

[nfoligno]

I guess I just feel that, as innovative as an OC might try to be, he still is restricted by the weapons he has at his disposal. When you have receivers who struggle to learn the basic plays, does that not make it more difficult to have an expanded playbook? When you have a QB little more than "decent", that too is going to limit you. Further, when you have an OL that is flat out a sieve, again, you are limited.

 

I do understand what you are saying, and have often called out Turner. IMHO, this was one of his better years, though that may be relative. But this year, I saw more different things than in previous years. For example, look how we used Olsen. I really feel Turner deserves props for the various ways we utilized Olsen. On one snap, Olsen would be lined up just at TE. On another, he would go into motion. On another, he would line up outside at WR. On yet on another, he would even line up in the backfield as an in-line blocker. I might argue similar for Hester in how we really seemed to try and move him around, finding ways to get the ball in his hands.

 

I just feel we were very limited here in that, outside Hester and Olsen, we just didn't have the weapons to put on the field. It is harder to not be predictable when you are limited in weapons, and worse, your weapons have a minimal knowledge of the offense they are in.

 

Further looking at last year, I think you can almost look at the season in 2 splits. Prior to the Orton injury, our offense was looking pretty decent, especially considering what we had to work with. They were staying on the field more, scoring more. At one point in the season, wasn't our offense a top 15 offense? I thought it was. But after the Orton injury, our offense tanked. In the 1st half, I thought I saw more plays like you want, which were unexpected and they worked. In the 2nd half, it just didn't work.

 

You can argue a great OC makes whatever he has look good. I might agree w/ that, but no one is calling Turner a great OC. I do however believe the majority of OCs need something to work with in order to be successful, and we just have not had the horses.

 

 

 

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.

[nfoligno]

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.

 

But how much of that expectation is based on personnel? Angelo has spent time, money and picks on the defense, loading up w/ pro bowl caliber personnel on the defense. How many pro bowl or pro bowl alternate players did we start on D last year? When you invest so much on one side of the ball, the expectation is greater. On the other side, history alone did not create a low expectation. So the talent and personnel. We started the year w/ Orton at QB, and few would call him great. We had an OL which was flat out awful. We started a converted WR on one side, who previously had now shown even the ability to learn the plays, and Davis on the other side, who doesn't deserve an explanation for low expectations. While many liked him, we started also a 2nd round pick rookie RB.

 

So I would argue more than just history created a different expectation for the offense and defense.

 

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.

 

Sorry, but I don't see it. I understant the idea that an offense that consistently goes 3 and out puts the D behind the 8 ball, but that just isn't what I remember seeing. I would watch our offense lead a drive downfield and score (FG or TD), only to watch the D immediately give up a longer drive, also resulting in points. This year, it didn't seem to matter what the offense did, or at what point in the game we were in. Our D was simply giving up easy 1st downs. It seemed near automatic against our D to just run a slant route for an easy 8 yard gain. That was not because they were tired, but simply because they could not defend the slant.

 

I myself have made the argument that, in the SB, the failures of our offense were a massive factor on our defense, the DM blown play aside. When you don't give your D time to catch their breath. When you lose the field position battle due to the offense. When your offense gives up so dang many turnovers, both on the ground and in the air, there is going to be a direct cause and effect ratio.

 

I simply didn't see such last year. Our offense did a better job last year than in previous years (recent), especially in the first half of the season when Orton was healthy. Yet our D simply stunk. I think the late GB game would be a decent example for your point, but that was also orton's first game back, and it was too soon. But in most any other game I think you could point to, I would argue our defense was a greater factor on the loss than the offense.