Fire Angelo, Lovie, Mike and Rod

Dan Pompei of the Chicago Tribune wrote an article called “Sour Gripes” with the subtitle “Sorry haters, but perception that Turner’s play calling is predictable doesn’t hold water” that is one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen in my entire life. It pains me to have to take apart this article, but I will. Note that the headline on my paper says “Sour Gripes” but for some reason the title of the article on the web site has been changed to “Perception of Chicago Bears offensive coordinator doesn’t match reality” for some reason, maybe because they are already getting mobbed with vitriolic comments, I don’t know.

He first takes a swipe at dumb old fans like me and you that actually WATCH the Bears or sit up in the cheap non-PSL seats every game rain, snow or shine (more 1 or 2). He says:

Ron Turner’s play calls are believed to be as predictable as a traffic light… you hear it on every sports talk show, in every tavern and in every restroom at Soldier Field. This is a convenient way for fans to express frustration. But it is based on “hunches” rather than hard evidence… The truth is that… the Bears’ offensive coordinator… is about as solid as they come.

OK, so there you have it. A super-smart journalist calling out all of us rubes who don’t know anything, who don’t have access to statistics, who have WATCHED TURNER WITH OUR OWN EYES FOR YEARS KILL THE HOPES AND DREAMS OF THE BEARS AND THE ILLINI. AARRGGHH.

But let’s keep going and look at the straw dogs Pompei makes and how to take them down.

The gripe: defenses know when the Bears are passing and when they are running. The truth: the Bears’ tendency has been to go against the usual calls on first and third downs. On first-and-10, usually when most of the league hands off, the Bears have passed 59.8% of the time. On third-and-10, traditionally a time to throw, the Bears have run it 50% of the time.

Us “haters” as Pompei refers to us in the headline, don’t care that the calls are predictable as much as they are INEFFECTIVE. The Bears famously claim to “get off the bus running”, and then they throw on first down, often incomplete. This sets us up for a run on 2nd down, usually ineffective. And now we face third and long, a “head in hands” moment for all Bears fans until Cutler arrived (because he can actually make some plays, despite Turner), AND NOW HE RUNS IT HALF THE TIME? WHY? IS THIS WORKING FOR US? NO NO NO! This little vignette goes a long way to explaining the opposite of what Pompei thinks… that Turner is a terrible offensive coordinator.

The gripe: The only runs Turner calls are straight up the gut. The truth: of the Bears’ 119 rushes this year, 26% have been wide of the tackles and 45% have been behind a tackle or further out.

NO Mr. Pompei you have it wrong again. The issue is that the Bears can’t do it WHEN they run it up the gut – they usually get stuffed for no gain or a loss. Just replay that 3rd quarter fiasco of 2 fumbles for Forte against Atlanta near the one. And overall the Bears’ running game is a complete disaster – just look at those STATS that you big journalist have such access to. Don’t they show the Bears near the absolute bottom of the league? FOR A TEAM THAT SAYS IT IS BUILT AROUND THE RUN?

The gripe: The Bears’ offense shows no creativity. The truth:

I really can’t sit through even typing through his defense of the Bears “creative” play calling. Perhaps I have hallucinated the last decade of sitting in the stands. It isn’t that the Bears’ aren’t creative, it is that when they do call something, it is a disaster or poorly executed. It isn’t changing the game, it isn’t innovative, and it isn’t working.

The gripe: Turner is too conservative and he won’t open up the offense. The truth: of the Bears 172 passing attempts, 22% have been for 16 yards or more.

Once again Pompei focuses on the wrong thing. For years, under Orton, Turner kept throwing what we called the “no chance bomb” as Kyle just lofted it up there about 10 yards past the receiver or 10 yards short. It practically never worked, but he kept trying. At least with Orton we had some sort of running game, now we have nada. So basically now Cutler HAS to throw down field because the Bears aren’t consistent enough to put together a short pass offense with no run support.

So where does Pompei get his insights on Turner? An opposing defensive coordinator!
“I think Ron is really good at his job” the defensive coordinator said… “I have total respect for him because he is not cute… Ron is one of the real coaches who calls the game to win it and not for the stats”

Well OF COURSE the opposing defensive coordinator is going to say good things about Ron, because Ron is terrible, and playing Ron ensures that the Bears are going to eke as little as possible about whatever offensive talent is on the field. This is like a famous “Dilbert” where Dogbert gives all of his worst employees great reviews so that his organizational competition steals them and then that guy jumps out a window because, of course, they are terrible in real life.

This one also is like a punch in the gut. Pompei talks to a scout. “He does a good job of playing to his players’ strengths”.

REALLY? Is that why all of the Bears players go on to awesome and productive seasons when they get out of the clutches of Mr. Turner, as Dan pointed out in this post.

And then Pompei the apologist ends the article this way, in a lame attempt to try to explain why, if Turner is so great, the offense is still terrible.

Calling a good game doesn’t always mean getting the ball in the end zone, however. Execution is part of it too. And Turner can’t do much about execution.

So that is it, it is all execution? Nothing is Turner’s fault? Because he calls an unpredictably bad game? Because he doesn’t always call a play (up the gut) that never works? That he threw downfield when Orton couldn’t do it and now because that is all Cutler has left to do since they gutted the running game? And because an opposing defensive coordinator told it to him? And that Turner brings out the best in his players, those that left to become stars elsewhere?

A while back Dan asked me why the journalists aren’t calling for Turner’s head since he is so obviously terrible. I said I didn’t know. Now I think that they want to be on Turner’s “good side” so that they can get the “inside scoop” as journalists. The weird thing is, who cares? I don’t care what is going on in Turner’s head or how he is mis-understood. I care that we RUN A TERRIBLE OFFENSE that HAS BAD STATISTICS and HAS PLAYERS THAT THRIVE WHEN THEY LEAVE CHICAGO. This is what all of us “rubes” in the stands and in the Soldier Field locker room think. I think maybe the reason the web site changed the title of this article is that it was frankly offensive to the readers of the paper to call us “haters” because we all just want the Bears to win. It is insulting.

To give the Chicago Tribune some credit, I think it is just Pompei that is an idiot. Right below him Rick Morrissey writes that “Benson’s success magnifies troubling trend” saying what we all know, is that Bears players thrive once they leave Chicago, and that it is a bad trend.