RichH55 wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am
The 2018 numbers were simply high - as you could see when even the cherry picked numbers only get you "in the range" (i.e. Less)
And certainly some of Turnovers is Luck (NOT ALL) - so, so many factors of course
Take Fumbles for example - Forced Fumbles v. Recovered Fumbles are notoriously "unsticky" year to year
You can force 10 a year and your recovery rate can really be all over the place
The 2018 numbers (with a fantastic defense and great Hicks) were simply high in that regard
Now - with better coaching, Eddie Jackson in the right position, and Hicks healthy - would they beat 2019's numbers?
But they would have still been short of 2018
Rich, you act like our turnovers in 2018 were almost legendary and the result primarily of luck. While luck plays variable role in turnovers, it generally takes a backseat to scheme and personnel, and our 2018 while good were far from being "legendary," unable to be reproduced. For example, in 2019, the Steelers had 38 turnovers and the Patriots had 36.
But let's examine whether turnovers can be sustainable over time with scheme and personnel as opposed to simply luck. I'll start with our very own Lovie Smith who really emphasized turnovers.
Lovie became the Bear coach in 2004, and we finished 16th in the league with 29 turnovers. In 2005, we finished 6th with 34. In 2006, we finished 3rd with 44 (so much for that "legendary" 36 number in 2018). 2007, 8th with 33. 2008, 2nd with 32. 2009, 14th with 28. 2010, 3rd with 35. 2011, 6th with 31. 2012, 1st with 44 (again dwarfing our 2018 numbers). So with the exception of his first year where we had 29 turnovers, we had 30 plus turnovers every year and dwarfed our 36 2018 turnovers twice with 44.
Now let's see if turnovers can follow a particular coach from one team to another by examining Buddy Ryan. Let's start in '83 when Buddy was beginning to coalesce the personnel to run his system. In '83, the Bears finished 15th with 38 turnovers (again so much for that 36 2018 number). In 1984, we finished 16th with 34. In 1985 we finished first with 54 (now that's approaching "legendary" range). In 1986 without Buddy, we slipped to 3rd with 47. And in 1987, two years removed from Buddy, we dropped drastically to 28th with only 24 turnovers. Meanwhile, the Eagles in Buddy's first year in '86 finished 14th with 36. In 1987, the Eagles finished 1st with 48. In '88, they finished 2nd with 44. In '89 the finished first with 56. In 1990, they dropped to 16th with 30. And in '91, they popped back to first with 48. In '93, he joined the Oilers as DC and the Oilers finished 2nd with 43 turnovers, while the Eagles dropped to 8th with 35. In '94, he became head coach of the Cardinals and they finished 4th with 36 while the Oilers dropped to 20th with 26. In '95, his final year coaching, the Cardinals finished first with 42.
So it seems that while there were considerably more turnovers in the eighties and nineties than today, 36 turnovers on the year doesn't seem like it's so far out of sight now as not to be duplicated. In fact it was reached twice just last year. And it also certainly appears that scheme and coaching and personnel plays a considerable role in turnovers. Lovie Smith was able to maintain a turnover range over 30. And Buddy Ryan proved that the ability to cause turnovers and follow a coach from team (Bears) to team (Eagles) to team(Oilers) to team(Cardinals).
As such, I don't think it was at all as "certain" that those 36 turnovers in 2018 couldn't have been surpassed by the Bears as you would like everybody to believe. Of course, speaking in hindsight, it certainly appears more "certain" than speaking before hand. I'm not going to say that you never said anything beforehand, as I don't presume to know every post you've made (as you do to me), but I certainly don't remember you saying anything before hand.