McClure: Chicago Bears' Ron Turner's aim this year

[G08]

Chicago Bears' Ron Turner's aim this year: Find a playmaker

Bears had few scoring plays that garnered more than 50 yards

By Vaughn McClure
Tribune reporter

10:43 PM CST, January 20, 2009


MOBILE, Ala.

Ron Turner never flinched as the Bears sliced three coaches from their staff this off-season, cutting ties with defensive assistants Brick Haley, Steven Wilks and Lloyd Lee.

The Bears' offensive coordinator received a vote of confidence from coach Lovie Smith as the entire offensive staff escaped unscathed although the Bears finished 26th in the league in total offense.

"No, not really," Turner said when asked Tuesday whether he was nervous about losing his job. "You just do the best you can with what you have, work as hard as you can and let things fall where they may. ...

"Yeah, it's good to know Lovie believes in what we're doing. We just have to continue to get better."

As Turner dissected film from this season, his biggest concern was the lack of big plays such as ex-Bear Bernard Berrian's 99-yard touchdown when the Vikings defeated the Bears in late November.

True, Devin Hester evolved as a receiver and rookie running back Matt Forte exceeded expectations. But the Bears managed just three offensive scores of 50 yards or more and 16 plays of 30-plus yards.

"We did a lot of good things. But the one thing that was missing throughout the year was big plays," Turner said.

Having a big-play receiver would help. Hester showed progress and could be the guy, but it would help to add another threat to complement him. The Bears will have to rebuild their receiving corps, with Brandon Lloyd and Marty Booker likely out of the mix next season.

"We have to look at all the options there, either through the draft or free agency," Turner said. "We have some really good young talent on offense. We have to continue to add to it."

If the Bears go the draft route, Texas Tech receiver Michael Crabtree is the name most mentioned as a difference-maker.

He is unlikely to be available when the Bears pick No. 18 overall, but their first-round emphasis is likely to be defense.

Another name to consider is Maryland's Darrius Heyward-Bey, like Crabtree an underclassman.

"It's a real good year in the draft for receivers," Turner said. "And I think there will be some free agents out there we'll look at."

Many eyes will be on Turner to see how the offense progresses next season. Quarterback Kyle Orton took a step forward before an ankle injury caused him to take a step back. Forte's late-season toe sprain emphasized the need for a complementary back, and the Bears could address that need through the draft.

"I believe in what we're doing offensively," Smith said. "Ron does a great job. But we all need to do a better job. We need to get a little bit more firepower. And we will."

vxmcclure@tribune.com







Rhett Bomar among quarterbacks hoping to catch eye of Chicago Bears

Bears' draft focus is likely to be defense, however

By Vaughn McClure
Tribune reporter

10:44 PM CST, January 20, 2009


MOBILE, Ala.

As he huddled with a Bears scout Monday evening, quarterback Rhett Bomar was unsure how much interest the team truly had in him.

Bomar, a former Oklahoma Sooner, ended his college career at Sam Houston State.

"You really don't know anything until draft day," he said. "I haven't had a formal interview with any of their coaches yet."

The 6-foot-2-inch, 224-pound Bomar, much like the other quarterback prospects here at the Senior Bowl, appreciates the opportunity to sit down with any NFL team. His accuracy and strong throws over the first two practices have caught the eyes of many coaching staffs, including that of the Bears.

Signing a veteran free agent such as Chris Simms is an option, but grooming a rookie QB would not be a stretch. And don't count out the Bears moving forward with just incumbent Kyle Orton and Caleb Hanie on the 53-man roster.

The Bears own the 18th pick in the draft and are certain to emphasize defense early. Players such as Bomar and Texas Tech star Graham Harrell (6-2, 217), both of whom are on the North roster at the Senior Bowl, could be worth considering in later rounds. Harrell has been impressive with his accuracy.

[G08]

I wouldn't hate Bomar... but it'd have to be in the 3rd or 4th round, if not later. Something about the kid screams douchebag to me, but I can't knock his arm/competitiveness.

[RING4CHI]

But the Bears managed just three offensive scores of 50 yards or more.

Off the top of my head I can name two of them. Matt Forte's touchdown run against Indy in week 1 and Orton to Hester for 65 yards at Minnesota. Can't think of the other one.

[gaba]

Why does it matter how they score? As long as they score, I don't care if it's a 60 yard bomb or a 1 yard dive.

[G08]

It's hard to keep sustained drives for scores in the NFL. You NEED big-strike ability. It's a necessity.

[gaba]

It's hard to keep sustained drives for scores in the NFL.

It's hard to execute the big play too. The game is hard. If a team is scoring points though, I don't see how it really matters how the points get there. There wasn't an asterisk next to the Bears Superbowl appearance in '06 because too many points came from defense. Good teams get things done and good coaches know how to use the team's strengths to get things done. The Raven's didn't need a high-powered offense to win it all. Hell, they didn't need an offense at all.

Of course, that's not to say I don't agree that we desperately need a decent WR. Personally though, I'd take a reliable guy with good hands (I keep coming back to Ricky Proehl as an example) over a fast and flashy big name.

[UOK]

I'd just like to hear any evidence of the Bears having a deep pass attack at all last year, and any evidence to the contrary that that issue would be resolved going into next year.

[G08]

It's hard to execute the big play too.

Tell that to Grossman/Berrian circa 2006.

[Halas85]

Tell that to Grossman/Berrian circa 2006.

Since Grossman has officially failed long-term in Chicago, this just goes you show us that while big plays are great (and no, I don't think Grossman and Berrian would say it's easy to connect on the deep ball), consistency is better.

While I see both ends of the perspective -- big plays AND short plays are important -- I don't think a team can set a goal of forcing the big play. Big plays develop out of consistently making the typical "boring" plays and capitalizing on occasional defensive breakdowns, which happen more often when you keep the other team's defense on the field. You hear it every Sunday, on a third-and-15-plus when the offense calls a screen or a draw, the announcers saying, "Teams just don't have many plays for that kind of yardage." This is probably only accurate in the sense that it's hard to force the big play against a prepared defense. This is just another way of saying, "You need the short play -- or at least the possibility of a short game -- to make the big play successful."

[UOK]

Arguing for this kind of shitty offense we have is like saying "I'd rather have a car that can drive me safely from the driveway to the neighbors house than risk having one that can handle driving with everyone else on the interstate."

[Halas85]

Arguing for this kind of shitty offense we have is like saying "I'd rather have a car that can drive me safely from the driveway to the neighbors house than risk having one that can handle driving with everyone else on the interstate."

To better fit my argument, it would be like having a broken down car in your driveway and thinking that if you can get it started, you should be able to drive it cross country despite the fact it stalls at every stoplight. Let's get the damn thing running consistently, and the long road trips will take care of themselves.

Either that or analogies like this are just stupid and meaningless. Though I guess it's kind of funny to see an argument where two people try to "out-analogy" each other. You know what I mean.

Guy 1 (Discussing the Presidency): Look at it this way. If you were on a plane in crisis, wouldn't you rather have a pilot with 30 years experience over the guy with four?

Guy 2: Not if the pilot has a half-dozen crashes on his record.

Guy 1: But if the crashes were due to technical error, and he was able to crash controllable with with few injuries, you'd definitely still want to experienced guy.

Guy 2: Yeah, but if the plane were a rainbow, the pilot a leprechaun, and the crisis a bridge into Wichita ....

[UOK]

To better fit my argument, it would be like having a broken down car in your driveway and thinking that if you can get it started, you should be able to drive it cross country despite the fact it stalls at every stoplight. Let's get the damn thing running consistently, and the long road trips will take care of themselves.

Either that or analogies like this are just stupid and meaningless. Though I guess it's kind of funny to see an argument where two people try to "out-analogy" each other. You know what I mean.

Guy 1 (Discussing the Presidency): Look at it this way. If you were on a plane in crisis, wouldn't you rather have a pilot with 30 years experience over the guy with four?

Guy 2: Not if the pilot has a half-dozen crashes on his record.

Guy 1: But if the crashes were due to technical error, and he was able to crash controllable with with few injuries, you'd definitely still want to experienced guy.

Guy 2: Yeah, but if the plane were a rainbow, the pilot a leprechaun, and the crisis a bridge into Wichita ....

lol yeah I love it when it gets out of hand on some threads and after awhile it gets completely ridiculous.

[gaba]

I know the analogy's dead but... I've had cars that I absolutely would not take on the highway. Sometimes you just need something to get you from point A to point B. Sure, you could get something more reliable that you could take anywhere, but then you'd have less money to spend on strippers and booze. I'll settle for the crappy car if it leaves me more money to buy strippers and booze for Lance Briggs.

[Halas85]

Sure, you could get something more reliable that you could take anywhere, but then you'd have less money to spend on strippers and booze. I'll settle for the crappy car if it leaves me more money to buy strippers and booze for Lance Briggs.

Strippers = Tommie Harris, a great tease but nothing you can commit to long-term without regrets.
Booze = Devin Hester, a great pick-me-up in short bursts but nothing you should hang your hat on.

Looks like we already have our strippers and booze. Could we at least upgrade our car from crappy to semi-competent?

(See, analogies are stupid, yet I still can't resist!)

[gaba]

Strippers = Tommie Harris, a great tease but nothing you can commit to long-term without regrets.
Booze = Devin Hester, a great pick-me-up in short bursts but nothing you should hang your hat on.

Looks like we already have our strippers and booze. Could we at least upgrade our car from crappy to semi-competent?

(See, analogies are stupid, yet I still can't resist!)

Nope, because the strippers and booze does not represent Lance Briggs. They are FOR Lance Briggs because he is the only person on this team worth sacrificing for. He is the ONLY player I would be upset to see traded.

Urlacher's a legend (I don't think his recent downward spiral will change that) but I would get over seeing him in another uniform if it made the Bears better.

Devin Hester is freaking amazing and in the right hands, he's got gifts that could even make him a Hall of Famer. But this team isn't getting the most out of him and if we could find a team that thinks they still can, I'd gladly trade him for a top-flight receiver or a great safety.

Matt Forte may be a once-in-a-generation type player, but it really isn't all that hard to find a good running back. If someone else had picked him up, we might've done just as well with Ray Rice, Kevin Smith or Steve Slaton.

Greg Olsen is a very good tight-end that we're not even really using.

Mike Brown (not that we could trade him since he's a free agent but that's not the point) would be sorely missed but it's not like there's a lot of years left in there anyway.




SOOOOooooo... the point I'm trying to illustrate is... well f*&k, I don't even know. What was the original point again?

OH YEAH... how did the Colts beat us in the Superbowl. Was it big plays, or long sustained drives that ate up the clock and didn't even give our offense a chance to see the field? They scored on ONE long pass and the rest of the game was just LONG... SUSTAINED... DRIVES. They couldn't even score more than a field goal for the rest of the game but the LONG... SUSTAINED... DRIVES... not only kept their defense fresh, but didn't allow our offense the opportunity to score. You CAN NOT score from the bench.

The p*ckers have 8 40+ yard receptions from Greg Jennings and 6 more from Donald Driver. The Lions got 7 from Calvin Johnson and the Vikes got 7 from Bernard Berrian. The Saints got a ton of big plays from a handful of players. Where are these teams today? Yup, they're at home just like the Bears. Hell, the Vikes were the only ones that even got a chance to be embarassed in the playoffs. The big play is great for the highlight reels but it rarely wins games. The teams that win games (and championships) are the ones that can march down the field, get 1st downs and score by any means. Big plays just mean big egos. It doesn't translate into Ws.

[Halas85]

But if you were going to purchase a brand spankin' new Stanley tape measure, would you rather opt for the version that flops after extending just three feet, or would you pay a few dollars extra for the more rigid, big-play version that won't flop before extending 12 feet or more? I'm just sayin'...

Or if Chicago's offense were a pot of water heating on a stove top, and a frog sitting in the water were the corps of offensive players, would the players remain committed to the water more if it was heating quickly or gradually and consistently?

OR ... if Turner were Adam, Angelo were God and the skill positions each a rib from Turner's body...

[Chifaninca]

Ohhh damn, when Gaba makes sense I know it's time for to check what's in my drink. LOL.

Nice stuff Gaba...

I'm just amused anyone actually thinks we have an offense, let alone a guy who could run an NFL offense.

Go Bears...........

[gaba]

But if you were going to purchase a brand spankin' new Stanley tape measure, would you rather opt for the version that flops after extending just three feet, or would you pay a few dollars extra for the more rigid, big-play version that won't flop before extending 12 feet or more? I'm just sayin'...

Or if Chicago's offense were a pot of water heating on a stove top, and a frog sitting in the water were the corps of offensive players, would the players remain committed to the water more if it was heating quickly or gradually and consistently?

OR ... if Turner were Adam, Angelo were God and the skill positions each a rib from Turner's body...

Keeping up with the analogies is getting harder, but I think I'd prefer a small accurate tape measure, to walking it off and hoping you get it right.


... and where the hell did you find a tape-measure that'll extend 12 feet without flopping. You might as well be asking for the next Jerry Rice.