Michael Lombardi: Turner in "unique position" thanks to Cutler

[defiantgiant]

From the National Football Post:

 

Diner morning news: How Titans, Bears will adjust

by Michael Lombardi

 

TGIF, everyone. The big free-agent signing in the offseason was Albert Haynesworth by the Redskins, and the big trade was the Bears’ deal to get Jay Cutler. Let’s look at those moves from a slightly different point of view — from what’s left for Tennessee and what can be expected from the Bears.

 

...

 

Ron Turner, Chicago Bears

 

Turner is in a unique position because rarely does a team trade for a young quarterback who has a proven history on the field. He’s like a race car driver who is able to jump in a car in the middle of a race. Coaches often ask themselves how they can best develop a player. Turner, however, has spent the OTA days and mini-camps thinking how lucky he is -- along with asking the question, “How can we score more points with Cutler?”

 

Cutler will be the best thing that has happened to Turner’s career as an assistant coach. He gets a player who’s eager to prove to some that he was badly treated in Denver. He gets a player with a chip on his shoulder (trust me, Cutler’s chip is a good-sized chip) and who’s competitive. Cutler welcomes the challenge that awaits the Bears’ offense. The best thing for Turner is that he doesn’t have to change what the Bears do; he will just be able to do it more effectively.

 

Everyone seems to think the Bears need to improve on the outside at receiver — and to some extent, they do. However, with Cutler, running back Matt Forte and tight end Greg Olsen, the Bears can be very effective controlling the middle of the field. With Desmond Clark as the blocking tight end and Olsen as the Dallas Clark-type tight end, the Bears will be able to force teams to stay in their base defense, thus allowing them to exploit defenses.

 

With the Bears’ running game, along with their desire to run the ball, they can create all kinds of problems for teams just being very basic. Turner has never been afraid to keep calling plays that work (you’d be shocked at the coaches who won’t run the same play twice), so in theory, less is more with Cutler. Like the Colts, being in a simple run-enabling formation will force teams to keep their nickel defense on the sidelines, allowing Cutler to get many first down-type throws — which he’ll complete at a very high rate. Olsen will be a problem for teams to match up with each week because of his size and route running.

 

So for all the talk about Cutler making the Bears’ offense more diversified and complex, it’s my belief that Turner will keep it very simple, very basic with his formations; he can create a host of mismatch problems each week. The mismatches create the diversions; the complex nature of the offense, not the plays. Once he decides to make Devin Hester more like Wes Welker and less like Randy Moss, this offense can be scary good — even without a No. 1 wide receiver.

[madlithuanian]

Interesting read. Actually quite similar to a lot of what nfo's been mentioning.

 

From the National Football Post:

 

Diner morning news: How Titans, Bears will adjust

by Michael Lombardi

 

TGIF, everyone. The big free-agent signing in the offseason was Albert Haynesworth by the Redskins, and the big trade was the Bears’ deal to get Jay Cutler. Let’s look at those moves from a slightly different point of view — from what’s left for Tennessee and what can be expected from the Bears.

 

...

 

Ron Turner, Chicago Bears

 

Turner is in a unique position because rarely does a team trade for a young quarterback who has a proven history on the field. He’s like a race car driver who is able to jump in a car in the middle of a race. Coaches often ask themselves how they can best develop a player. Turner, however, has spent the OTA days and mini-camps thinking how lucky he is -- along with asking the question, “How can we score more points with Cutler?”

 

Cutler will be the best thing that has happened to Turner’s career as an assistant coach. He gets a player who’s eager to prove to some that he was badly treated in Denver. He gets a player with a chip on his shoulder (trust me, Cutler’s chip is a good-sized chip) and who’s competitive. Cutler welcomes the challenge that awaits the Bears’ offense. The best thing for Turner is that he doesn’t have to change what the Bears do; he will just be able to do it more effectively.

 

Everyone seems to think the Bears need to improve on the outside at receiver — and to some extent, they do. However, with Cutler, running back Matt Forte and tight end Greg Olsen, the Bears can be very effective controlling the middle of the field. With Desmond Clark as the blocking tight end and Olsen as the Dallas Clark-type tight end, the Bears will be able to force teams to stay in their base defense, thus allowing them to exploit defenses.

 

With the Bears’ running game, along with their desire to run the ball, they can create all kinds of problems for teams just being very basic. Turner has never been afraid to keep calling plays that work (you’d be shocked at the coaches who won’t run the same play twice), so in theory, less is more with Cutler. Like the Colts, being in a simple run-enabling formation will force teams to keep their nickel defense on the sidelines, allowing Cutler to get many first down-type throws — which he’ll complete at a very high rate. Olsen will be a problem for teams to match up with each week because of his size and route running.

 

So for all the talk about Cutler making the Bears’ offense more diversified and complex, it’s my belief that Turner will keep it very simple, very basic with his formations; he can create a host of mismatch problems each week. The mismatches create the diversions; the complex nature of the offense, not the plays. Once he decides to make Devin Hester more like Wes Welker and less like Randy Moss, this offense can be scary good — even without a No. 1 wide receiver.

 

[defiantgiant]

Interesting read. Actually quite similar to a lot of what nfo's been mentioning.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. I think it's an interesting point that opposing defenses could have problems using the nickel against the Bears. On the one hand, my first thought as an opposing DC would be to put a nickel corner on Olsen, just because there's just no way I'd want a linebacker covering him downfield. I know most teams' nickel backs would be giving up 65 pounds and six inches of height, but I'd rather have Olsen go against a 5'11" 190-lb. defensive back who can actually keep up with him, rather than put a linebacker on him and watch him run right by the guy.

 

I think Lombardi's right that our 2TE set could potentially cause a lot of matchup problems for opposing defenses, since we have a lot of versatility. They'll have to gameplan for a great receiving threat TE who can block OK, a great blocking TE who's still a legitimate passing target, and a legit dual-threat RB. If opposing defenses over-commit to one facet, treating Olsen like a wide receiver, Clark like a blocking TE, or Forte like a straight-ahead runner, there'll be plenty of ways for those three to take advantage. Really, the more the Bears stay in a double-tight set in 2009, the better off we'll be. Tampa Bay is in a similar situation: they're in great shape at running back, they have one all-around TE and one great receiving TE, but they've only got one real threat at wide receiver. I'll be interested to see if both teams rely as heavily on 2TE formations as I think they will.

[Mongo3451]

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. I think it's an interesting point that opposing defenses could have problems using the nickel against the Bears. On the one hand, my first thought as an opposing DC would be to put a nickel corner on Olsen, just because there's just no way I'd want a linebacker covering him downfield. I know most teams' nickel backs would be giving up 65 pounds and six inches of height, but I'd rather have Olsen go against a 5'11" 190-lb. defensive back who can actually keep up with him, rather than put a linebacker on him and watch him run right by the guy.

 

I think Lombardi's right that our 2TE set could potentially cause a lot of matchup problems for opposing defenses, since we have a lot of versatility. They'll have to gameplan for a great receiving threat TE who can block OK, a great blocking TE who's still a legitimate passing target, and a legit dual-threat RB. If opposing defenses over-commit to one facet, treating Olsen like a wide receiver, Clark like a blocking TE, or Forte like a straight-ahead runner, there'll be plenty of ways for those three to take advantage. Really, the more the Bears stay in a double-tight set in 2009, the better off we'll be. Tampa Bay is in a similar situation: they're in great shape at running back, they have one all-around TE and one great receiving TE, but they've only got one real threat at wide receiver. I'll be interested to see if both teams rely as heavily on 2TE formations as I think they will.

We were hoping for the danger of the two TE set last year, but weren't able to utilize both as recieving threats, due to our lack of OL strength. This year will be interesting, as I don't think Pace and Williams will need "chip block" help to handle their pass protection duties. Plus, Forte will have better release options. Oh, did I mention we have Jay Cutler? The entire playbook is at the ready now. I am still leary of how fast it will all come together. I'll be happy if we are 2-2 at the bye. We have a chance to go 10-2 after...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nfoligno]

Yea, we used a lot of 2 TE formations last year. Also, we moved Olsen around quite a bit, which I was really happy to see. I liked how much he was moved around, put into motion, playing multiple WR positions. Heck, he even lined up as a FB toward the end of the year.

 

You mention how, despite our use of such a formation, we were still limited in that we had to still use at least one TE as a blocker, thus reducing the mismatch potential. No argument, but I would add one more limitation, still due to the OL.

 

When did you see Olsen run deep routes? It is on deeper patterns where Olsen creates the true mismatch. Even when we played against cover two schemes (a scheme where most all realize the weakness is in the deep middle) we were inable to utilize him such. Our OL simply could not sustain their blocks long enough for our weapons to run deep patterns, and even when they could, we lacked a QB w/ the arm strenght/accuracy to hit him downfield.

 

This is why I think we could see a big breakout year for Olsen. I really liked how Turner tried to use Olsen last year, but due to our QB/OL, we were simply not able to utilize him in ways that would match talent expectations. This year, I think we will see Olsen become a downfield threat much more, which could really take his play to another level.

 

We were hoping for the danger of the two TE set last year, but weren't able to utilize both as recieving threats, due to our lack of OL strength. This year will be interesting, as I don't think Pace and Williams will need "chip block" help to handle their pass protection duties. Plus, Forte will have better release options. Oh, did I mention we have Jay Cutler? The entire playbook is at the ready now. I am still leary of how fast it will all come together. I'll be happy if we are 2-2 at the bye. We have a chance to go 10-2 after...