Post by tragicslip on Sept 27, 2017 9:48:59 GMT -6
for me it's just about not shell shocking the kid, and i think this line is good enough that play calling can protect him from scarier defenses. that said, i expect Mitchell wants to play and he can open up PA better than what we've got now.
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
That's why I volunteered. Sometimes need outweighs pride. LOL
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.
They were hilarious then and even funnier today.
I drank some of the Kool-Aid the Bears were putting out then too. Turns out, Tampa judged him correctly and moved on to McCown and eventually Winston.
I drank some of the Kool-Aid the Bears were putting out then too. Turns out, Tampa judged him correctly and moved on to McCown and eventually Winston.
My first preference was to have kept Cutler as he is a better QB than Glennon. And cheaper too. The thing is that I did not know how the interaction and dynamics between him and Trubs would be like. In addition, I am so tired of seeing INTs at the worst time. I like Glennons approach better. He does not necessarily wait until the game is in nail biting "we can win this mode". He will more evenly distribute his INTs.
My second choice was McCown. We has success with him and he was an actual QB coach (HS, but still). Everyone also talked about him being a great young QB mentor. He would have been a better choice (IMO) than Glennon and maybe get rid of the need for Sanchez. But the Bears didn't ask me.
Hard to argue with the sheer genius of having Glennon and Sanchez as the veteran QBs on your team though.
I drank some of the Kool-Aid the Bears were putting out then too. Turns out, Tampa judged him correctly and moved on to McCown and eventually Winston.
My first preference was to have kept Cutler as he is a better QB than Glennon. And cheaper too. The thing is that I did not know how the interaction and dynamics between him and Trubs would be like. In addition, I am so tired of seeing INTs at the worst time. I like Glennons approach better. He does not necessarily wait until the game is in nail biting "we can win this mode". He will more evenly distribute his INTs.
My second choice was McCown. We has success with him and he was an actual QB coach (HS, but still). Everyone also talked about him being a great young QB mentor. He would have been a better choice (IMO) than Glennon and maybe get rid of the need for Sanchez. But the Bears didn't ask me.
Hard to argue with the sheer genius of having Glennon and Sanchez as the veteran QBs on your team though.
Was he really cheaper? I believe they would both be around 16mil. Maybe McCown was a good option, yes
My first preference was to have kept Cutler as he is a better QB than Glennon. And cheaper too. The thing is that I did not know how the interaction and dynamics between him and Trubs would be like. In addition, I am so tired of seeing INTs at the worst time. I like Glennons approach better. He does not necessarily wait until the game is in nail biting "we can win this mode". He will more evenly distribute his INTs.
My second choice was McCown. We has success with him and he was an actual QB coach (HS, but still). Everyone also talked about him being a great young QB mentor. He would have been a better choice (IMO) than Glennon and maybe get rid of the need for Sanchez. But the Bears didn't ask me.
Hard to argue with the sheer genius of having Glennon and Sanchez as the veteran QBs on your team though.
Was he really cheaper? I believe they would both be around 16mil. Maybe McCown, yes
I thought Cutler would have been cheaper but maybe I'm wrong.
I don't see it as a situation where we rush T in before he is ready, nor do I see it as we automatically let him rot on the bench all year. At some point THIS season he is going to be ready to be an NFL starter - and begin the next step of his QB development that ONLY begins when he is in "real" games.
1. Don't start Trubisky before he is ready to be a starter. 2. Don't sit him on the bench if he is ready to be a starter.
It seems so simple to me. Why on earth would you let him rot on the bench if he's ready to start? So we can watch Glennon play all year, just for the hell of it? LOL, I'm not getting this. It isn't rocket science. We spent a #2 overall draft pick on this guy. If he is ready to start - start him. If not, then don't.
Was he really cheaper? I believe they would both be around 16mil. Maybe McCown, yes
I thought Cutler would have been cheaper but maybe I'm wrong.
It was about the same cap wise. Cutler's salary was $12.5 mil and he had a $2.5 per game roster bonus so if the bonus didn't hit the cap 'til 2018 then he's a bit cheaper than Glennon this year and a whole lot better but as long as Fox remained HC it wasn't gonna work.
Cutler would have played for him because that's Cutler but Cutler would not have liked playing for him. Not after the games Fox played with the starting roles last October. That as much as anything made it time to say good bye. How well he might have mentored Trubisky we'll never know because it didn't happen.
But this much I do know. Pace didn't draft Trubisky to sit behind Cutler for two years either. He was drafted to start sooner than later and to drag that offense into the 21st century. Now IMHO all Pace has to do is get rid of Fox so that can actually happen because it won't while he's still the HC.
I drank some of the Kool-Aid the Bears were putting out then too. Turns out, Tampa judged him correctly and moved on to McCown and eventually Winston.
Here's something that's hard for me to grasp.
They say that one reason rookies have to sit and learn is so by the time they're ready to play the game has slowed down for them. Trubisky seems to be able to process at about double the speed Glennon has so what happened with him.
To me it's like we have to slow the offense down to coincide with Glennon's processing speed. Comparing that alone to Trubisky it's like one is running a modern Intel Core i7 processor and the other is like a first generation 8086. Glennon is a plodder.
One bad habit I hope to see us break is this assumption that players will ascend and play better for us than they have elsewhere when it's quite often just the opposite. What can I say? I'm not a huge fan of how we've been building through UFA and I can't understand how anyone else can be either.
I'm well aware of what "the plan" was regarding Glennon and at least initially could see some sense in it but that was long before I saw how bad he truly is. So they can keep trying to sell this plan and Loggains can keep coming out each week saying Glennon is doing exactly what he needs to win but I ain't buyin' it.