azbearsfan

Its funny you bring this up, because I have been reading and reading everything and anything on who we have been scouting and such. I think there is a really good chance that we take some picks that are considered "reaches" by the traditional sources but will be players that we really like for one reason or another (kind of like the Forte and Hester picks were reaches). The second round pick will be interesting. There could be some WR's that fall to us OR we could spend that pic on Massaquoi. I agree, I think WR is the pick regardless. A player I would not be surprised to see us get with the 3rd rounder is Mike Mitchell S Ohio. He has experience at FS, SS, CB, runs well, hits hard, and seems like an intelligent player. Even if it would be considered a "reach" I think they like him alot. I also think they like the DE from Texas in the fourth round. It looks like it will be an interesting day. My only prediction is that people on this board will probably be pissed (like they were after the Hester pick)

And also at this point nothing is set in stone. I think that if a value drops to us in Nicks or Robiskie then we wouldn't Massaquoi over them. I think that we might like him at the top of the next tier of WR, like the Murphys, Ramses, etc. Those guys all have certain issues and other things must go into consideration when drafting them. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if we go with the Johnson safety kid.

Well I guess its a matter of personal taste, then. I found his ramblings annoying, not funny. And I know I'll probably be in the minority here, but I like the Cris Collinsworths and the Troy Aikmans. They aren't afraid to call it as they see it and come well informed, which I like. Its alot like the NFL Network crew. I was watching yesterday and they straight up called Mangini and McDaniels, Mickey and Minnie mouse because they were working off of Belicheks legacy. They killed the owners that hired them calling them fools. That is the kind of thing you would never hear from Madden or the clown show from Berman at ESPN where everything is puffy clouds and great all the time. But thats just me...

lol And the funny thing is that I didn't even think about the Farve thing until I started writing that response. I guess thats how you know Farve's retirement will stick this time. He doesn't have his PR guy in the booth anymore.

Well that sounds like Plax, Braylon Edwards, Boldin and TO. All of those guys drop too many balls, but you live with it because they can make plays because they are bigger types of receiver.

Really??? I can appreciate what he has done for the game of football, but he hasn't been good in the booth for years. Kind of like Keith Jackson in college football. They held on a little too long. When Frank Caliendo mockumentary of you is better than the real thing, you know you need to retire. Thats also funny it coincides with Farve's retirement.

Says who??

And new BFF Greg Olsen looks HUGE in street clothes. Lets hope that bonding pays off on the field.

lol He IS better than Orton at everything!!!!!!!

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.

The weird thing is why they would wave someone with a fantastic size-speed-athleticism combo. On paper, he looks good, but there has to be more to the story.

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.

Damn. I'm not THAT old.

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.

lol I'm too old. Class of '99

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.

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.

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).

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.

Yeah, unless we are getting rid of Wolfe and Peterson we dont need another one unless its a FB.

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.

Oh so the "dominating defense" got us 9 wins last year. Guess I must have missed that one.

Hoof, When did you go to ASU? I too, graduated a SunDevil.

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.

Yes but he has that problem in high school as well. He had no position coming out of high school except ath. He couldn't learn a position in high school either. They just had him in for a few special plays at WR and RB that he could remember. So basically at Miami, they put this five star athlete who really had no experience at different spots hoping to find one he was good at. They didn't put him on the bench, he couldn't beat anybody else out for a position. The four picks he had were a result of bad passes caused by the dline, not some great break he made on the ball. He was the nickel back in those instances. And the RB thing was a complete disaster. It completely negated his skills in the open field, and because he was so small, dline and LBers were killing him. He wasn't able to even get to the corner on a regular basis to make it a worthwhile position for him. So coming out of college then ticket was on him becoming a DB because Dion Sanders was "tutoring" him. So really JA reached for nothing more than a return man at the time. Of course, I was happy because I was hoping he could do the same in the pros, and he did. The jury is still out on the WR switch. My point is that they were trying to do what was best for the kid (find him a position to excel) but because of the player's limitations they were not able to.