Daniels has never done anything to prove he should have any starts. other then that I agree.
at this point you just have to deal with this year and expect better the next 2 yrs
I only say Daniels because he is what we have. Ohhhh I know, how about another run with good ole Cutty...hahahah
I wouldn't put him in the cutty catagory yet; he hasn't been given 2 extensions for giving the bears as many playoffs as the previous "franchise qb"; ie rexxxy.
And that's where I put Mitch, in the Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton catagory, not in talent or play, but guys that need developed, maybe he turns out like them, maybe he turns out better we just won't know one way or another until next year, and probably not until mid way until next year.
1 is in the 2nd year of his NFL career and had 14 college starts. One was in his 8 year of his NFL career. Which one should have the higher standard held to him? 8 year vet w/tons of NFL film on him showing he's average or 2 year nfl player that everyone...EVERYONE...knew was going to take 2-3 years minimum to come out b/c of next to no college xp.
I meant Mitch being average after 3-4 years. Are people really gonna be okay w/ that? Because they sure as hell weren't after Cutler's first season in CHI (4th overall).
And if everyone knew he was going to need 2-3 years to come out then no one should have had him as a first or second rd pick in their mocks. There should never be "projects" in first or even 2nd rounds. The first 50 players should always be considered day one starters who don't need any more practice and are good to go.
You don't draft projects in the first two rds, that's what late rd picks are for.
People gave Cutler more then 1 year grizz. I was a "hater" and I wasn't off the train after 1 year.
We don't disagree w/that. I didn't have him as a top pick, or a top qb pick. But again if his ceiling, after everyone is developed is seen as higher then the other qbs taken, then you take him. B/c it's nota 3-4 year position, it's a 15-20 year position if he works out. Why would you worry about the first couple years out of 1-2 decades.
projects get drafted all the time in the first 2 rounds b/c of talent and upside. They don't always work out, but it does happen.
Post by tragicslip on Sept 25, 2018 11:49:18 GMT -6
Steve Young, Bret Favre, Brees all guys that took time to develop. Patience doesn't mean the team won't plan for potential failure. You guys are too used to old Gms that pinned their hopes on one guy and did nothing to cover their bet (even when that guy was 7th Rd Webb). Pride isn't a problem for Pace, see wr comming in even after we draft K White.
Post by brasilbear on Sept 25, 2018 12:06:45 GMT -6
Can't compare QB drafting with other positions. The NFL currently is a QB driven league. Teams can have short term success with an average QB and an elite DEF, but it isn't sustainable. The teams with long term success have v.good to elite QBs. This is why QBs are "over-drafted" or taken sooner than they should be. Yes, in an ideal NFL world Trubisky would not have been a first round pick. But because be plays QB his ceiling (potential) has to be considered when it comes time to slot him into your draft board. He was considered by Pace to have the highest ceiling--the most potential. So you take him. If he fails, you draft another QB until you get one, and IMO you draft them early (also borne out by the evidence) and trust your scouting process was right.
What the NFL hasn't figured out is what to do with that prospect QB you end up having to take early. Sit? Start? Combo of both? Its complicated because different guys learning different offenses under different head coaches will improve/learn at different rates.
Can't compare QB drafting with other positions. The NFL currently is a QB driven league. Teams can have short term success with an average QB and an elite DEF, but it isn't sustainable. The teams with long term success have v.good to elite QBs. This is why QBs are "over-drafted" or taken sooner than they should be. Yes, in an ideal NFL world Trubisky would not have been a first round pick. But because be plays QB his ceiling (potential) has to be considered when it comes time to slot him into your draft board. He was considered by Pace to have the highest ceiling--the most potential. So you take him. If he fails, you draft another QB until you get one, and IMO you draft them early (also borne out by the evidence) and trust your scouting process was right.
What the NFL hasn't figured out is what to do with that prospect QB you end up having to take early. Sit? Start? Combo of both? Its complicated because different guys learning different offenses under different head coaches will improve/learn at different rates.
All of those are excellent points. And if it were easy to do this, then every team would have a great QB instead of what we have now with a lot of churning and shuffling of QBs league-wide each year. I think what I struggle with personally is not so much waiting for Trubisky to achieve his ceiling, so much as just wanting him to get a leg up on the initial learning curve. Something, anything as far as significant progress. I am so looking forward to him achieving that milestone where he at least contributes enough to help the team win games. Right now he's just kind of out there taking up space on the field. He's not bad but he's not a weapon yet either. To me it's like watching a Kyle Orton-level guy out there now. I'm not comparing his play to Orton but his impact on the games. I actually liked KO but obviously he wasn't exactly a QB powerhouse. So I'm just hoping Trubisky is as football smart as we are lead to believe and he starts picking up some of the NFL game. Until then, he's just a guy out there to me.
Stop making game to game comparisons. After the Tampa game check Mitch's stats over the 4 game period. In 4 more games, week 9 , compile those stats, see if he is getting better. I am not telling you he will be a star, but spread his development out over a series of games for a more accurate picture.
Stop making game to game comparisons. After the Tampa game check Mitch's stats over the 4 game period. In 4 more games, week 9 , compile those stats, see if he is getting better. I am not telling you he will be a star, but spread his development out over a series of games for a more accurate picture.
But, if you did that it would eliminate all the opportunity for drama and hyperbole!!
I think after the bye week (as the OP) I will remove or lock the poll. At that point it should just be a discussion about how well Mitch progresses each week, or not.