jason

Maybe I am taking liberties with his quotes, but that's how I interpret it when in reference to the Bears' offense. Like most others in this thread, I noticed that the "stats" in this article are horseshit. Some are misleading, some are stupid, and others are not good for Turner. With all that said, the stats DEFINITELY don't support Turner as a good offensive mind. The Bears haven't been a dangerous offense in his entire tenure, and even though he got Cutler this year, they are still mid-level at best. Let him produce an offense in the top ten a few years in a row and then I'll get off his back. Until then, I just can't deal with this predictability, lack of adjustment, and stubborn usage of players and plays without factoring in the type of player, down, and situation at the time.

The problem with Turner is in the first three sentences of the second page: "What we believe is to out-execute them," Turner said. "Do enough things formation-wise, play-wise, to keep them off balance. In other words: "I put in the plays, and I think they should work regardless of down and situation. If they don't, it's because the players didn't execute well enough. Doing a variety of things to keep the defense off balance is not what we do very much because the players should be able to succeed if they simply execute better." In my mind, that's BS. Sure, execution is probably the most important thing out there on the field, but when you're competing in the NFL, there isn't much difference between bad and good. You NEED to do things to confuse the opponent and keep them off balance. As for the "gripe" vs. "truth" section, it's fairly easy to come up with a very simple counter argument to each of the lines supporting Turner. If anything, the support for him in this article, at least the statistical portion, is mumbo-jumbo like the "almost interception." The supposed inside sources, however, can't be proven or refuted. But, honestly, what's the likelihood of an NFL scout, coach, or front office guy talking bad about another? Not very likely.

nfo, you completely misunderstood me. You have to read the post in its entirety. I think an aggressive defense with this group would give up big points at times, and have awesome games at times. Eventually they'd get better and have less of the former. If you read the next sentence, it says "I'd rather have," implying that the 21-30 is almost a guarantee with the passive defense the Bears play right now. That's where those arbitrary numbers come from. I don't mind the layup as long as it's consistently made. But if the layup is missed half the time, we may as well go for the three pointer. Overall I agree with this part. The one caveat, however, is that I believe an aggressive defense typically improves, and a passive defense gets complacent. Initially the 40 point games might be necessary, but in a short period of time they would be less necessary because the aggressive defense would get better and help the offense out. Winning is the name of the game, and I agree that this style could have growing pains. I am willing, however, to take a step back to take two forward. As it stands now, the Bears are on a treadmill.

Agreed. But it appears that the entire league knows where the blitzes are coming from, and the blitzes are, more often than not, picked up with ease.

Agreed...as long as Wolfe isn't being used up the pipe when it's an obvious down and distance situation that calls for an up the pipe run (e.g. from the 1yd line going out). I'd LOVE to see more of Wolfe on the field. I've been saying it since he got drafted, and all I heard was, "He's too small!" and "He's not an every down back" from the majority of the board. This dude quietly went onto the ST and became a beast, making what seems like every single tackle. He's been proving doubters wrong his entire life, and I think he'll do the same if given the chance to carry the rock 10-20 times a game.

Ex-friggin-actly. If Lovie were to play Connect 4, he'd start trying to counter moves after his competitor already had three lined up with empty spots on each side.

For the sake of argument, I'll let everyone know that I didn't see much of Briggs, Ogunleye, Brown, or Cutler on the sideline where I was at. They were mostly about 20 yards or more away, and I couldn't judge much from their character. Tillman, however, I saw numerous times...and there is no denying his demeanor; he looked defeated and distracted.

We simply disagree. The first down play may be as predictable, but not the second down play. If you fail with a first down pass, there is a much higher likelihood that you'll run on second. It's one of those, "I took a chance and it failed, now it's time to go back to the basics"-philosophies. If the run happens on first, and is unsuccessful, then the second down play is much more unpredictable. It's not the play, it's the order of plays. I believe I explained it in the reply above. If the Bears went run then pass, and the D was stacked on second down, it's an easy TD. Keep in mind one minor detail, however: I think that if the play action pass on first down was to a TE, it would have been a much better play, and because of the superior size/talent of the Bears' TEs, would have had a much more likely chance at success. I agree that the OL sucked on those plays, but still contend that the order in which the plays were called didn't help. First down play action to a FB, unless it's a good TE known for pass catching abilities, is a bad call. The run up the pipe on second is immediately predictable when following that first down play.

Bears O vs. Bengals D The Bengals defense is not good. The Bears should be able to put up good rushing yards, as well as some big plays on offense. I predict, however, that the Bears will put up about 21-24, which is about 10-14 less than what they should get. Why? Because suddenly the Bengals defensive line will be, according to the announcers anyway, "rejuvinated," or "playing very well without Odom." When we all know that the Bears OL just stinks like a dead skunk on the highway. Bears D vs. Bengals O I think the Bears will have a problem with Benson, and he'll want to show them they were wrong. That spells more men in the box, and wider spaces for OchoCinco to roam. Could be bad news. Bears 24-Bengals 21. Yet another Lovie-style close victory that could very well have been a blowout.

If Farv were pushing himself out of a 3 foot pool of piss, I'd climb in waist deep just to kick out his arms. Yes, I hated him LONG before the retirement nonsense.

It was me. And I'm not sure all care. I'm nearly positive that Omaliye doesn't. Others probably care, but it's not high on the priority list. A few desperately care, and they want to win above all else. I got the final impression from Olsen. I'm positive he hates losing.

I'd say other things matter, like, oh I don't know, field position. A defense that bends but doesn't break has a bad habit of allowing another team to eat up long-ish drives, gaining field position, and setting themselves up for future weakness when we all know the offense is susceptible to quick 3-and-Out possessions. The bolded question? The answer is, yes. The problem is, however, that it never allows the latter of the two to have big games. Sure, with the abundance of talent, the big games will come as a result of great turnover numbers, and the bad games will simply be good performances. With lesser talent, however, there is never the potential to have a great game. Most of the games will be unimpressive and resulting in giving up something like 21-30 points. I'd rather have a defense that has the potential AT ALL TIMES of destroying the opposing QB...even if it means we get beaten badly from time to time. While the current cover-2 teaches a defense to be passive, and causes them to be increasingly passive, the opposite scenario allows a defense to bristle with pent up anger or emotion, a desire to go Ray Lewis on an opponent. And with that, the bad performances against opposing offenses become less and less. Whether or not this team has the talent is undetermined to be quite honest. How will we ever know if the chance is never taken? You fail to hit a home run EVERY time you don't swing. And whether or not we have talent makes me wonder...did the Philly or Pittsburgh defenses that caused havoc for a decade straight just have that much talent? I don't know if they did, because many of those guys went elsewhere and didn't play as well. I don't think the Bears have the best talent on D, but I think they have enough to do more than they are currently doing.

I was just doing some quick browsing, and I found this link. Angelo should set it as his home page. Which one (two?) of the guys on the list do you think the Bears should target in FA? I would love to see the Bears nab two of these guys, and then draft a guy early.

Thanks for the link. I agree with most, but the last one is stupid...has nothing to do with the Bears now. I think the author just wanted a nice, round number in 10.

First down, the play action was to McKie, not a TE. Which is why there was no separation. I don't like the play action to the FB, especially when it's McKie, a guy who is essentially on the team for the same reasons that Omaliye is still starting. Second down, the run up the middle was too predictable. Multiple people beside me, as well as me, were calling it before the snap. When Turner tries something even remotely outside of the box and it doesn't work, he crawls back into the shell. The run up the pipe on second down was the easiest call all game. He may as well have put Forte in a different colored jersey to let everyone know who was getting the ball. Third down, I liked this call. It was different, and gave Forte a chance to find his own hole. I think it comes down to when each play is called. And that is where Turner's biggest failing occurs. By running the play action on first, it significantly lessens the likelihood of seeing a play action call on second. If he had called that play again, I'm sure it would have worked because the Falcons were loaded for the middle. Turner would have been better suited to slam it into the middle on first down, then line up with the exact same formation on second. Then the defense wonders more about the likelihood of either the same run, which is common to run twice in a row from the one, or the play action, which is common, or even the QB sneak. I just think that Turner runs from a script, and he's far too easy to predict. I'm sure that if I made a point to study gamefilm I could find some serious patterns and situational statistics. When a player hits your curveball a mile, but it goes foul...it's not always best to switch up to the fastball. Sometimes you have to throw two curveballs in a row, and vice versa. It's situational, and I think Turner would be better suited if he had a catcher giving him the signals.

GREAT IDEA! Toub's special teams have consistently been the most productive part of the Bears, the best coached of the three aspects of the game, and he's lost arguably more of his "key players" than either the O or the D. With that said, I'd rather see an offensive minded coach come into Chicago for a change. Many here may have hated him, but Crowton was the last person to make the Bears offense dangerous, and I still think that the Bears should have made a play at Martz when he was available.

The Patriots sure looked good this past weekend ripping the Titans a new A-Hole and setting scoring marks unseen for nearly 60 years, and they just about ignore the run...as do the Saints. What I'm trying to say is, if the offensive scheme is sound, and the players productive, then it can work regardless of the weather. If anything, an atypical approach is better because the other teams aren't used to it. Think about how much more difficult it is to play against a 3-4 as opposed to a 4-3, or a left handed pitcher as opposed to a right handed pitcher. All that said, I don't want to see the Wildcat here a lot, because Devin Hester, Johnny Knox, and Garrett Wolfe are not the same as Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams.

Good question. I can't think of one player, aside from Briggs, who has turned into a breakout defensive guy since coming to the Bears. If anything, just about every player - once again, aside from Briggs - has probably gotten worse under the regime of Lovie Smith and his passive defense. As for all the stat talk above, I, too, think it's misleading; and to be quite honest, even if it is accurate, I don't want my team playing like to "keep it close." I want a team that goes for the throat...something a Lovie Smith team almost never does unless the opponent just flat falls apart.

I forgot to tell you guys something from the game... During Half Time they had the silent drill team from the Marines. A bunch of guys with rifles, bayonets, and some razor-sharp movements. They were tossing weapons back and forth with perfect movements. It was a pretty impressive site. Well, near the end of their routine, Maynard starts to take warmup kicks. He's bombing 50 yarders from his 25 to the opposite 25, trying to put them near the sideline. Over and over he's drilling them to the same spot. And then when the Marines begin marching off the field, while still towards the middle, Maynard shanks a kick. You hear the groans. You hear the "uh-ohs." The ball barely misses the formation as the march perfectly off the field. Unfortunately, however, the ball bounces straight into the right arm of a young Marine marching in lock-step. The man never even flinches. Left, right, left... Maynard heard boos that were as loud as when the Bears team emerged from the tunnel. ================================================================= In all seriousness, Maynard may be the team MVP at this point...but that was not his greatest moment.

I think that you will find me and nfo calming agreeing with this idea...for almost two years now.

Nodding my head in agreement.

Weak article to say the least. He needs to quit tap-dancing around the issue and just come out and say it: The OL in Chicago SUCKS.

I noticed this several times, MadLith. I also don't understand it. The cover-2 is teaching the Bears' players to be passive...and it sucks.

I seem to recall saying this before this year's draft. I knew our WRs were going to be OK...they just needed help. Of course, they still need help from the OL, but at least the rocket arm can make up for the minimal time.

Two words: Ron Turner. That's why it won't happen. It's far too outside of his comfort zone. It's beyond his vanilla style. He's far too regimented into the old-school way of offensive coaching philosophies that dictate on 1st and 10 you do this, and 2nd and 5 you do that. Which, of course, is why he's so predictable. And in large part it's a reason why the Bears offense hasn't been worth a damn whilie he's been the OC.