On paper, when dissected and parsed for meaning, what Bears offensive coordinator Ron Turner said Wednesday about what the team’s self-scouting revealed about the offense borders on ridiculous.
There is context, of course. But when it comes to the debate over Turner’s job status these days, context is often the first casualty.
Asked how the internal study of this year’s play-calling compared to last year’s, Turner only gave his growing legion of critics more fodder.
“I wouldn’t say it’s different at all as far as what our tendencies are, what we’re doing or anything else,” Turner said. “It’s very similar to what it was a year ago.”
The results clearly have been anything but similar.
The Bears have sunk from 15th in total offense in 2006 to 25th this year. Furthermore, a season after achieving a nearly perfect offensive balance of 48 percent rushing and 52 percent passing, the ’07 Bears are 62-38 pass-to-run.
The lack of production combined with increased predictability has created consternation over the offensive coordinator that is unmatched in Chicago since the Shoop Era.
But is it Turner’s fault that Cedric Benson couldn’t run?
If you believe it is, then you are among the people who think Turner should work elsewhere next year. However, if you hold Benson mostly responsible for being a bust, then logically it makes no sense to get rid of Turner.
More than any factor, Benson turned the Bears’ running game into the worst in the league statistically. More than any player in the locker room this year, Benson’s failure affected the big picture, including Turner’s.
Yes, the offensive line aged, the passing game struggled and the play-calling lacked imagination. But give any NFL offense a bona fide running back capable of a 1,400-yard season and the missed blocks don’t result in as many 2-yard gains, the quarterbacks aren’t forced into as many pass-only downs and Turner’s imagination doesn’t seem so infertile.
Turner has had a lousy year. He must be held accountable for his role in the demise. Too often in games, especially early, Turner has stuck rigidly to a script that indicated he was immune to instinct.
So hold Turner responsible for doing a better job of limiting Benson against Seattle than the Seahawks’ defense because he didn’t call his number more after Benson’s first two carries netted 63 yards.
Blame Turner for questionable calls on isolated third- and fourth-and-1 situations that killed momentum in key losses.
Criticize Turner for being overly predictable with his use of Devin Hester; for not figuring out how to exploit mismatches in the secondary with rookie Greg Olsen; for not coming up with a better schematic way to stop the blitz.
But fire Turner?
Give him an offensive consultant to bounce ideas off of but don’t give him a pink slip.
Firing Turner one season after he was the offensive coordinator of the NFL’s second-highest scoring unit, one that didn’t have a skill-position player make the Pro Bowl, seems like an overreaction.
If coach Lovie Smith indeed overreacts and fires Turner, he might be compounding one mistake with another.
Both coordinators deserve to be under the microscope after a 5-9 season that began with Super Bowl expectations. But no way Smith will fire defensive coordinator Bob Babich, whom he elevated after he fired Ron Rivera in his most questionable decision last off-season.
It’s not like Smith launching offensive coordinator Terry Shea after 2004 when Smith and Shea were relative strangers. Besides having more loyalty to Babich, Smith has too much riding on his success. It was considered a Smith coup that Babich replaced Rivera, a move that didn’t exactly excite everybody at Halas Hall.
The defense Babich inherited was ranked fifth overall in 2006; it is now 29th. There are circumstances that have been out of Babich’s control, just as there have been for Turner. But if there’s a coordinator in the building who hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt this season, it’s not Turner.
Perhaps most significantly considering his employer, Turner signed a contract last year that runs through 2009 and the Bears aren’t an organization that likes to pay assistant coaches to stay away.
Any new play-caller also would be Smith’s third in five seasons. Do you trust Smith or Jerry Angelo to find an innovative offensive mind? What proven offensive coordinator would want to work with an offense with such limited talent? Consider that the next guy could be worse.
Smith typically hasn’t tipped his hand about Turner’s future, which means nothing. He endorsed Shea in ’04 about a month before launching him. When addressing the offense’s ineptitude Monday, Smith mentioned lack of execution before any other factor.
Quarterback Kyle Orton inadvertently supported Turner by implicating his teammates for their role in the offensive collapse.
“Listen, it’s tough to call the game when you have so many penalties and you’re not executing the plays that are called,” Orton said. “We have to do a good job of just giving ourselves a chance on each play.”
If Smith was looking for an excuse, he always could point to communication breakdowns such as Turner’s premature naming of Orton as the starter this week. But that would be a silly premise on which to base a firing.
Turner hears the whispers. He says he hasn’t read the newspaper and he likely isn’t aware of the Internet movement against him, but he knows the pressure is looming.
“You just keep coming in every day, working hard and doing the things you believe in,” Turner said. “We believe in what we’re doing, the way we’re doing it, and we’re going to keep doing in that way.”
Is the scrutiny fair?
“When you’re not winning, yeah, sure it is,” Turner said. “It’s everybody. Not just the players, not just us. We’re not getting it done.”
It just has been one of those years for the offense. But it shouldn’t be Turner’s last in Chicago.
———-
dhaugh@tribune.com
