meh. if the coaches like our OL to run an O and protect the QB, start Mitch. Glennon struggles with mandatory throws and the rookie should at least give us an idea of what we have at TE/ WR. i am sorry, but right now those players aren't getting enough chances to show anything.
if you think the OL is too shaky (due to play OR lack of depth) sit him. I hope Glennon can do something to look more proficient, but i am not holding my breath.
Well, I think we can agree that Glennon is probably not going to get any better. The WRs are probably not either. Trub would be using the same ones.
meh. if the coaches like our OL to run an O and protect the QB, start Mitch. Glennon struggles with mandatory throws and the rookie should at least give us an idea of what we have at TE/ WR. i am sorry, but right now those players aren't getting enough chances to show anything.
if you think the OL is too shaky (due to play OR lack of depth) sit him. I hope Glennon can do something to look more proficient, but i am not holding my breath.
Well, I think we can agree that Glennon is probably not going to get any better. The WRs are probably not either. Trub would be using the same ones.
pretty hard for WRS to do anything when they can't get balls. look at the throws to Tarik. he is constantly having to stoop down to grab screens, costing him time and leading to less than 2 yard gains. Look at the pick that targeted Miller. Miller gets blown up, the ball is behind him. Not only are these off target throws, but the delivery is slow, giving the D more time to react.
I don't think our 3 and 4s at WR are world beaters but i am not willing to write them off until they get a chance to fail. i also know the rookies throwing motion is much more compact, allowing for pump fakes and better throws on the run ( harder to react to, although throwing on the run and Glennon isn't a thing).
Well, I think we can agree that Glennon is probably not going to get any better. The WRs are probably not either. Trub would be using the same ones.
pretty hard for WRS to do anything when they can't get balls. look at the throws to Tarik. he is constantly having to stoop down to grab screens, costing him time and leading to less than 2 yard gains. Look at the pick that targeted Miller. Miller gets blown up, the ball is behind him. Not only are these off target throws, but the delivery is slow, giving the D more time to react.
I don't think our 3 and 4s at WR are world beaters but i am not willing to write them off until they get a chance to fail. i also know the rookies throwing motion is much more compact, allowing for pump fakes and better throws on the run ( harder to react to, although throwing on the run and Glennon isn't a thing).
I'm not going to argue with you. I see the same things you see. Glennon is not very good. That is why teams that had the chance to make him their starter did not. No argument.
And even though my strong preference is to let the original plan unfold because I liked it and no part of it has really changed, if they decided to start Trub this year, I would not be screaming that it was the wrong choice. I would be anxious to see how he picked up the defenses and hope he did not take too much of a pounding or lose too much confidence. Thoise things can happen if he starts next year too, so it's just playing the odds that I think would benefit him. I do not know for sure that the path I like is the better path. You would have to try both and see which is better, but of course you can't do that and then reset to where things were before you tried them. Any potential damage done stays done.
If they played Trubs, I'd be ok with it. I just think this is better for us long term.
meh. if the coaches like our OL to run an O and protect the QB, start Mitch. Glennon struggles with mandatory throws and the rookie should at least give us an idea of what we have at TE/ WR. i am sorry, but right now those players aren't getting enough chances to show anything.
if you think the OL is too shaky (due to play OR lack of depth) sit him. I hope Glennon can do something to look more proficient, but i am not holding my breath.
Well, I think we can agree that Glennon is probably not going to get any better. The WRs are probably not either. Trub would be using the same ones.
I disagree with wr's not getting better. They should, expect much better play from Wheaton and Wright
I guess in the world of Point vs Counterpoint I'll be Jane the ignorant slut.
I'm gonna disagree. If Trubisky is learning anything from being a "forward observer" it's what not to do and how to read progressions and release the ball more quickly. But then he can already do that better than Glennon. We're also talking about 2005 when Rodgers was drafted vs 2017. Things have changed a bit since then.
For starters Rodgers was paid $7.7 mil total.....for five years!!! Mitch is getting $7.258 mil.....per year for four!!!
In 2017 rookie QBs don't sit for any extended period of time unless they are drafted by a team with a HOF QB. The CBA implemented in 2011 reduced much of the benefit of waiting because it also reduced the amount of teaching and practice time a coaching staff can spend with a young QB. Rookies at every position are on a more accelerated plan to start now. With the exception of Jared Goff nearly every highly drafted QB in the last four or five years has played as a rookie and I believe Trubisky should as well. The only question that should be asked is when.
If we're going to compare Rodgers situation to Trubisky's then we also have to compare why it was possible to sit Aaron for three years. The Packers had a QB whom they felt confident they could win with. We have a QB we aren't even confident can score and be competitive let alone win with. If the 2005 Packers were starting a QB no better than Mike Glennon how much sooner might Rodgers have started? So we're really talking apples to onions here by even comparing the two. The situation isn't even close to being the same and it was a different era.
I won't deny that Trubisky is getting some benefit from this delay but I believe it's far less than the Bears would like us to believe. If during the preseason Glennon had show any real ability to play all that well and Trubisky had not I would then agree that Mitch needs more time. But that's not how it went down. Trubisky soundly outplayed Glennon and we all saw that. That alone finally forced the Bears hand on the plan to keep Trubisky at #3. Now Sanchez is the highest paid inactive QB not playing every week and in that poll I posted 80% believe that if Trubisky is gonna sit anyway Sanchez should be starting over Glennon. Now that should shock a few of us.
At a point I believe Trubisky can learn more of what he needs to learn to become solid starter simply by going out and showing that he is one. Screw the excuses about our poor receivers. We've had even worse in the past and should Trubisky have a long career in Chicago given our history with them there's a very good chance he'll have to deal with this again in the future. He was throwing to some of these same guys and worse in the preseason and connecting well enough so why wouldn't he be able to do it now? Hell we throw more to our RBs anyway. As of this week the OL should be mostly intact again as well so IMHO that would take away the other popular excuse being used.
So if anyone can honestly tell me they believe Trubisky can't come in and run this anemic offense we have now better than Glennon I'm gonna have them put on a 3 day hold in the nearest psychiatric unit for observation. As a whole and based on their efforts to be better the team deserves better than Glennon right now. If we can make Sanchez the highest paid inactive QB each week then we can also make Glennon the highest paid #2. This is the Bears after all and we do crazy shit sometimes. Unless Mike Glennon pulls off some miraculous change in his ability to lead that offense and score I don't see the benefit of waiting much longer and risking Howard and Cohen simply because we expose them to more risk via over use against defenses stacked to stop them. There is that concern too.
There will never be a perfect time or perfect game to make Trubisky's first. At some point in time we simply have to bite the bullet and play him instead of dealing with this like a worried mother sending her little boy off to his first day of school. So unless you plan on home schooling him under John Fox for an entire season (God forbid) wave good bye to him Mama Pace and let the kid get started on his education. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I guess in the world of Point vs Counterpoint I'll be Jane the ignorant slut.
I'm gonna disagree. If Trubisky is learning anything from being a "forward observer" it's what not to do and how to read progressions and release the ball more quickly. But then he can already do that better than Glennon. We're also talking about 2005 when Rodgers was drafted vs 2017. Things have changed a bit since then.
For starters Rodgers was paid $7.7 mil total.....for five years!!! Mitch is getting $7.258 mil.....per year for four!!!
In 2017 rookie QBs don't sit for any extended period of time unless they are drafted by a team with a HOF QB. The CBA implemented in 2011 reduced much of the benefit of waiting because it also reduced the amount of teaching and practice time a coaching staff can spend with a young QB. Rookies at every position are on a more accelerated plan to start now. With the exception of Jared Goff nearly every highly drafted QB in the last four or five years has played as a rookie and I believe Trubisky should as well. The only question that should be asked is when.
If we're going to compare Rodgers situation to Trubisky's then we also have to compare why it was possible to sit Aaron for three years. The Packers had a QB whom they felt confident they could win with. We have a QB we aren't even confident can score and be competitive let alone win with. If the 2005 Packers were starting a QB no better than Mike Glennon how much sooner might Rodgers have started? So we're really talking apples to onions here by even comparing the two. The situation isn't even close to being the same and it was a different era.
I won't deny that Trubisky is getting some benefit from this delay but I believe it's far less than the Bears would like us to believe. If during the preseason Glennon had show any real ability to play all that well and Trubisky had not I would then agree that Mitch needs more time. But that's not how it went down. Trubisky soundly outplayed Glennon and we all saw that. That alone finally forced the Bears hand on the plan to keep Trubisky at #3. Now Sanchez is the highest paid inactive QB not playing every week and in that poll I posted 80% believe that if Trubisky is gonna sit anyway he should be starting over Glennon. Now that should shock a few of us.
At a point I believe Trubisky can learn more of what he needs to learn to become solid starter simply by going out and showing that he is one. Screw the excuses about our poor receivers. We've had even worse in the past and should Trubisky have a long career in Chicago given our history with them there's a very good chance he'll have to deal with this again in the future. He was throwing to some of these same guys and worse in the preseason and connecting well enough so why wouldn't he be able to do it now? Hell we throw more to our RBs anyway. As of this week the OL should be mostly intact again as well so IMHO that would take away the other popular excuse being used.
So if anyone can honestly tell me they believe Trubisky can't come in and run this anemic offense we have now better than Glennon I'm gonna have them put on a 3 day hold in the nearest psychiatric unit for observation. As a whole and based on their efforts to be better the team deserves better than Glennon right now. If we can make Sanchez the highest paid inactive QB each week then we can also make Glennon the highest paid #2. This is the Bears after all and we do crazy shit sometimes. Unless Mike Glennon pulls off some miraculous change in his ability to lead that offense and score I don't see the benefit of waiting much longer and risking Howard and Cohen simply because we expose them to more risk via over use against defenses stacked to stop them. There is that concern too.
There will never be a perfect time or perfect game to make Trubisky's first. At some point in time we simply have to bite the bullet and play him instead of dealing with this like a worried mother sending her little boy off to his first day of school. So unless you plan on home schooling him under John Fox for an entire season (God forbid) wave good bye to him Mama Pace and let the kid get started on his education. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I guess in the world of Point vs Counterpoint I'll be Jane the ignorant slut.
I'm gonna disagree. If Trubisky is learning anything from being a "forward observer" it's what not to do and how to read progressions and release the ball more quickly. But then he can already do that better than Glennon. We're also talking about 2005 when Rodgers was drafted vs 2017. Things have changed a bit since then.
For starters Rodgers was paid $7.7 mil total.....for five years!!! Mitch is getting $7.258 mil.....per year for four!!!
In 2017 rookie QBs don't sit for any extended period of time unless they are drafted by a team with a HOF QB. The CBA implemented in 2011 reduced much of the benefit of waiting because it also reduced the amount of teaching and practice time a coaching staff can spend with a young QB. Rookies at every position are on a more accelerated plan to start now. With the exception of Jared Goff nearly every highly drafted QB in the last four or five years has played as a rookie and I believe Trubisky should as well. The only question that should be asked is when.
If we're going to compare Rodgers situation to Trubisky's then we also have to compare why it was possible to sit Aaron for three years. The Packers had a QB whom they felt confident they could win with. We have a QB we aren't even confident can score and be competitive let alone win with. If the 2005 Packers were starting a QB no better than Mike Glennon how much sooner might Rodgers have started? So we're really talking apples to onions here by even comparing the two. The situation isn't even close to being the same and it was a different era.
I won't deny that Trubisky is getting some benefit from this delay but I believe it's far less than the Bears would like us to believe. If during the preseason Glennon had show any real ability to play all that well and Trubisky had not I would then agree that Mitch needs more time. But that's not how it went down. Trubisky soundly outplayed Glennon and we all saw that. That alone finally forced the Bears hand on the plan to keep Trubisky at #3. Now Sanchez is the highest paid inactive QB not playing every week and in that poll I posted 80% believe that if Trubisky is gonna sit anyway he should be starting over Glennon. Now that should shock a few of us.
At a point I believe Trubisky can learn more of what he needs to learn to become solid starter simply by going out and showing that he is one. Screw the excuses about our poor receivers. We've had even worse in the past and should Trubisky have a long career in Chicago given our history with them there's a very good chance he'll have to deal with this again in the future. He was throwing to some of these same guys and worse in the preseason and connecting well enough so why wouldn't he be able to do it now? Hell we throw more to our RBs anyway. As of this week the OL should be mostly intact again as well so IMHO that would take away the other popular excuse being used.
So if anyone can honestly tell me they believe Trubisky can't come in and run this anemic offense we have now better than Glennon I'm gonna have them put on a 3 day hold in the nearest psychiatric unit for observation. As a whole and based on their efforts to be better the team deserves better than Glennon right now. If we can make Sanchez the highest paid inactive QB each week then we can also make Glennon the highest paid #2. This is the Bears after all and we do crazy shit sometimes. Unless Mike Glennon pulls off some miraculous change in his ability to lead that offense and score I don't see the benefit of waiting much longer and risking Howard and Cohen simply because we expose them to more risk via over use against defenses stacked to stop them. There is that concern too.
There will never be a perfect time or perfect game to make Trubisky's first. At some point in time we simply have to bite the bullet and play him instead of dealing with this like a worried mother sending her little boy off to his first day of school. So unless you plan on home schooling him under John Fox for an entire season (God forbid) wave good bye to him Mama Pace and let the kid get started on his education. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
All variety of sluts are welcome
What would the meals be like?
Seriously, as I said before, I can't say you are wrong. Sometimes I feel strongly that a course of action is just wrong. I can't say that here. I can just say that my preference is to sit him. Follow the original plan. Glennon is playing his role and that's fine. It was to allow Trubs to develop, not to win games. The people that really thought he would win games and see he is not now want Trubs. I was never in that camp. Glennon was only a way to allow Trubs to develop for me and he is doing that.
In terms of Trubs being able to run this defense better than Glennon...... I don;t know, but if I had to guess, with all the pluses and minuses, I would say yes. He can run it at least as good as Glennon. And if I had a short term outlook, that would be enough to play him. I have a long term goal driven outlook. To have a perennial playoff contender in the Bears. Last year my goal was to get a long term winning QB because we were never going to get anywhere without him. I think we may have that in Trubs. The best path in my mind was to pick high. I was willing to sacrifice a season to do that especially since we were not going anywhere. I think when we look back, that will be looked upon as a good choice. On that path, I was very sure.
This year, my goal is to develop that valuable asset we got - our (hopeful) franchise QB. I don't think we are going to really have a chance to do anything meaningful in terms of playoffs so again, I don't care about this season. Whereas last year, my goal was to get a high draft pick to meet our goal, that is not my goal this year. It is just to make Trubs the best bet we can. If we get a high draft pick and Fox gets let go, both contribute to the growth of the team and it's long term success. So that path supports the long term goal on several fronts.
Am I as sure as last year of this being the right path? No, because I am not sure that Trubs would in fact get injured or his confidence set back. If I was sure, than I would be hell bent against playing him. What I do know is that he will continue to develop, I know we need to get rid of Fox, and I have a strong belief that Trubs will not make a difference this year in the playoff picture. So while there is a chance of his development being set back, I see that as the bigger risk in the picture. I don't see the rewards outweighing the risks. We probably would win a few more games on the way to not making the playoffs. I see no benefit there. He might develop much faster using game reps -- or he may go backwards. He is not all that removed from fumbling multiple hand offs in the drop back offense. Since that is a push for me (he will still develop -- but not as quickly in practice with no chance of of going backwards due to getting pounded because he can't read defenses well yet or losing his confidence). Therefore, my risk-reward prefers letting him sit. Am I right? I don't know, but that is my preference.
Except the situations are not the same. Rogers was brought in to be the starter down the line when a HOF QB finally retired. Rogers was never meant to replace Favre when Rogers was ready. Rogers was going to sit until Favre left. In todays NFL with the way rookie contracts are structured, I don't believe the Packers would draft a QB in the first round to sit behind Rogers for 3 years. This was a unique situation. Forgotten all together is still the point that Rogers sat for 3 years. Rivers said he was ready to half halfway through his rookie season. The NFL is different today than when Rogers was drafted. Things move fast.
Trub was brought in to be the starting QB. His development may have adjusted the time table and I think the Bears are slow to recognize this fact. Rivers is on record as saying his development stalled because he couldn't get game reps to actually practice what he was learning while under real game pressure.
Honestly, I can see both sides even if I do lean more toward starting him ASAP. Careers are too short. I would hate for Mitch to sit all season and meanwhile Howard's shoulder turns into a long term issue due to over use because Glennon can't complete a pass more than 10 yards down field.
And honestly, I thought Glennon would be better. I saw him as a Bortles upgrade over Hoyer/Barkley and I think Bortles is terrible. I am amused to reread the old posts about how Glennon had promise, was better than Winston, never got a chance to show what he was capable of....those were fun days.