Mitchell Trubisky's Future

[SmittyBacall]

15 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

I think it's too early to tell one way or the other. He certainly hasn't looked good so far, but he's talented enough that he could turn it around. One bright note is he has actually completed almost 70% of his passes. Jake Locker could never dream of having that accuracy.

What is this based on exactly though? His athleticism and arm? By that standard nearly every 1st round QB that busted has enough talent to turn it around.

[TheKillerNacho]

14 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

What is this based on exactly though? His athleticism and arm? By that standard nearly every 1st round QB that busted has enough talent to turn it around.

Granted, yes. But it's a bit unfair to say Trubisky has "busted" yet. Right now I don't see much reason to be optimistic nor pessimistic about his long-term success. We have seen plenty of QBs struggle early in their career to go on to be very good players, but we've also seen some who never improve. It's too early to tell.

[malak1]

20 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Granted, yes. But it's a bit unfair to say Trubisky has "busted" yet. Right now I don't see much reason to be optimistic nor pessimistic about his long-term success. We have seen plenty of QBs struggle early in their career to go on to be very good players, but we've also seen some who never improve. It's too early to tell.

We’ve also seen some who’ve started hot and never did anything after. Like you said, it’s way too early to make the call on Trubisky.

[NFLExpert49]

Runs hot-and-cold. When he's feeling it, he can thread the needle. When he's not...the concern is that when he misses, he misfires wide open throws by a mile.

He has some natural things that make him look the part when he's on. He's very athletic and can escape the rush. In college, he was a master of sliding away from the rush in the pocket, but he hasn't done much of that in the NFL. He has an "alpha" kind of body language and voice on the field. 

There's some Steve Young in him. And it took Young a long time to figure it out...and Young was much smarter. 

[RaidersAreOne]

I hope he fails (for better picks obviously) so I am biased, but I too think it's waaaay to early to call him a bum. The Locker comparison is spot on imo though. He will get all of this season and next still.

[MrOaktown_56]

I just went through all his throws from week 2: 

I'll preface it by saying it's early in his career and he's young/playing in a new offense.

But man, he did not look good.

He hit a lot of easy completions underneath, which I won't dock him for, but any quarterback worth a dime can complete those passes. 

He threw quite a few interceptable passes trying to improvise or throwing downfield. He missed wide open receivers at times. He benefited from some very nice play designs (e.g. the "touchdown" on the flip pass).

I didn't see a quarterback who was elevating his teammates or even playing within the system and hitting all the makeable throws. 

He threw a disastrous redzone interceptable ball that really should have been picked that could have changed the game. That could have been a pick 6.

And to those saying the Bears won the game "easily", yes they won the game. But that pick 6 saved them in what really wasn't a dominating performance. Their defense played very well yes. But Trubisky kept Seattle in the game.

Seattle isn't going to be good this year from all accounts. Their roster is absolutely horrendous and they weren't playing with Doug Baldwin. And they still were in this game.

 

 

[ET80]

We have an unfair expectation of when a QB should play up to their ability. We've been spoiled recently with a run of guys who are either great out of the box, or guys who flip a switch in year 2. 

Trubisky hasn't been great, but he has moments where it looks like it's coming together. He'll have his bumps in the road, but I don't expect him to bottom out - I think he'll turn out to be better than what we're all expecting.

[CWood21]

On 9/18/2018 at 4:20 PM, base615 said:

FFS, he has 13 college starts, 14 NFL starts and he’s having to unlearn bad habits from the first 12 of those. He’s going to be fine.

The same thing was said about every other bust.  He's a definition of a game manager for me, not something you want when you invested the 2nd overall pick in.

[riceman80]

I feel like there's an overwhelming number of threads on this site that dissolve into or are based around Trubisky sucking.

We get it people, you all think Trubisky sucks.

[Sugashane]

On 9/18/2018 at 10:04 AM, El ramster said:

Bears expected Jared Goff and they get Mitch Trusucky. He’s not very accurate in the short flat routes. Dude has that Cam Newton touch where he either over throws you, or throws a 300MPH fast ball for no reason. 

So you're ignoring how similar his production over his first 14 games has been per game to Goff's while Goff was in a better situation overall offensively? Ok then...

I wasn't the originator of this but it holds true.

 

Wentz over 14 starts [14 Pederson]

63%, 241 yards, .9 TDs, 1.2 TO

Goff over his first 14 starts [7 Fisher, 7 McVay]

58%, 201 yards, 1 TD, 1 TO

Trubisky over his first 14 starts [12 Fox/Loggains, 2 Nagy]

61.2%, 183 yards, .86 TDs, .9 TO

 

Pederson and McVay are 1000 times better than Loggains has ever been and it isn't even seriously debatable. Nagy, like Pederson, has a complex offense that takes time to get down. Mahomes had the offseason and 16 regular season weeks to get it down and then had another offseason with Reid and Co. Wentz ran a pro offense in college and had a ton more game experience so he took to his system pretty smoothly considering. 

 

Tru's top wideout was Wright last year (by a mile), a guy that couldn't even make a depth spot for MIN this year and would be the 5th WR (counting Burton as he is a move end more than traditional) on our team this year. Our top 4 targets are new to the system too, whereas Mahomes walked in with most of his cast already ingrained into the system. Even with 5 games of vastly superior cast and coaching Tru has put up pretty similar numbers over his first 14 games to Goff.

 

How many people here bailed on Goff after his God-awful start again?

 

19 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The same thing was said about every other bust.  He's a definition of a game manager for me, not something you want when you invested the 2nd overall pick in.

 

Rodgers was my favorite QB prospect - favorite offensive prospect - of all time, but he had a HUGE benefit from working under Favre (regardless if he was a mentor, you can pick up things from people you are constantly working with, Rodgers is far from too stupid to do it) and with guys like Clements and McCarthy for 2 years before playing any meaningful time. I'd love to bring him in slow like that, but outside of trading for Smith it wasn't feasible really.

But there is no way in hell if starting immediately upon drafting with his first 14 games he would be on pace for the 28 TDs and 13 INTs he earned in his first season as the starter. He had 3 years of development prior to that. Tru at least deserves his first 3 seasons to develop. If he busts then go for another draft pick but the damning of him this early is crazy to me.

[El Ramster]

Mitch sucks Goff had accuracy early on.. Mitch is good for pick up football at the park. You won’t sack him. 

[Sugashane]

7 minutes ago, El ramster said:

Mitch sucks Goff had accuracy early on.. Mitch is good for pick up football at the park. You won’t sack him. 

Trying to make it personal with snarky with childish comments... Cute. lol. 58% over his first 14.  Over 11% sack rate compared to Tru's 8% in their first seasons. Goff's pressure rate was over 35% IIRC his rookie year, etc. You're right, Goff was a god on the football field. I can barely believe he never won a game that year.

 

Look, I'm not diminishing what Goff and McVay have done. I'm not bashing them, I'm saying Goff grew and became a better player. His system is friendlier than Wentz's, but that isn't any error on him. He is put in the best situation to succeed that McVay can do, and he does what is asked of him. And he does it really damn well. My point was he GREW and improved as a player after a pretty bad start. You can put your blinders on to reality but it is a fact.

[El Ramster]

13 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

Trying to make it personal with snarky with childish comments... Cute. lol. 58% over his first 14.  Over 11% sack rate compared to Tru's 8% in their first seasons. Goff's pressure rate was over 35% IIRC his rookie year, etc. You're right, Goff was a god on the football field. I can barely believe he never won a game that year.

 

Look, I'm not diminishing what Goff and McVay have done. I'm not bashing them, I'm saying Goff grew and became a better player. His system is friendlier than Wentz's, but that isn't any error on him. He is put in the best situation to succeed that McVay can do, and he does what is asked of him. And he does it really damn well. My point was he GREW and improved as a player after a pretty bad start. You can put your blinders on to reality but it is a fact.

Go watch his rookie games. his first 2 games he threw 3 Tds to 1 int. You're hopping Mitch improves his accuracy. Goff had accuracy. Go watch highlights. 

The whole off season I heart Mitch was poised to make a Goff esque Jump. You've had OTA's, offseason and pre season. Yet the jump is what exactly? 

I'm more annoyed of the comparisons than anything. Mitch has not looked good sans that first qtr in GB. 

[Sugashane]

11 minutes ago, El ramster said:

Go watch his rookie games. his first 2 games he threw 3 Tds to 1 int. You're hopping Mitch improves his accuracy. Goff had accuracy. Go watch highlights. 

The whole off season I heart Mitch was poised to make a Goff esque Jump. You've had OTA's, offseason and pre season. Yet the jump is what exactly? 

I'm more annoyed of the comparisons than anything. Mitch has not looked good sans that first qtr in GB. 

So? Darnold had a pretty good game his first game and then sucked the next two. Neither will crown him as elite in his prime or indite him as a bust. But from some of the posters here he was suddenly "their guy" in the draft. Now some of those same people are saying the same about Mayfield after his solid first game. But Goff also ended with a lower QBR than Mitchell and had MUCH more in game experience in college than Trubisky, so shouldn't he have been far ahead of Tru? He may have been accurate on a lot of throws, but he didn't handle pressure well and also had a lot of issues with consistency.

 

I can't control what you hear, you should know better than most that people will parrot whatever they can in the media. It isn't about being right, it is about clicks and views. I guarantee you heard critic after critic (here or in the media) saying Goff was a bust. Sensationalism is what has kept Bayliss in business so long and making millions per year. The Bears forum wasn't even going on like that, we said we expected progression but knew Nagy had a tough system and Tru would be behind, but would catch up. We are looking for long-term improvements, not to suddenly go from worst to first in the NFC North. I don't believe I have read on Bears poster say they thought we were going to do that or Tru was going to put up crazy MVP-level numbers.

 

Regardless if you like it or not they have produced similarly. I haven't said Tru was set to be an MVP candidate or anything of the sort. I said about 24 total TDs and 12-14 INTs is what I expected. He is about on pace for just that. My comparisons weren't to say they were the same, it was saying how ridiculous it is that people have made such knee jerk statements about a player with so little work in this new system. I heard Wentz and Goff were both poor QBs on the old forum and then after getting some time to develop and help around them they flourished. I believe Tru can as well, but don't believe he will have a significant jump until 2019. He will improve as the season goes on, and as he gets in sync with his 4 new targets that are also making mistakes in their routes (Robinson himself admitted he has had some knucklehead mental errors on routes).

Goff last year had 9 TDs in 7 games and 1 game of over 300 yards passing. Then things really clicked for the team and he threw 21 TDs over his final 8. He went from looking good to looking elite. The players' comfort in the system and work together was the big reason for that. But here people are trashing Trubisky after just 2 games. Last year Goff accounted for 2 TDs and 1 INT over his first 2 games. It would have been stupid for people to dismiss him that early. THAT is my point. There are going to be similarities regardless if anyone wants to acknowledge them, but they are very different players with vastly different experiences. You can't pigeonhole a player based on someone else but you can use the original player as a reference at least.

[Heinz D.]

3 hours ago, riceman80 said:

I feel like there's an overwhelming number of threads on this site that dissolve into or are based around Trubisky sucking.

We get it people, you all think Trubisky sucks.

It's incredibly important to a LOT of people that this is the case. It's pretty weird, actually.

2 hours ago, El ramster said:

I'm more annoyed of the comparisons than anything. Mitch has not looked good sans that first qtr in GB. 

But that doesn't fit with your argument, so make sure you continue to ignore it. 

3 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I just went through all his throws from week 2: 

I'll preface it by saying it's early in his career and he's young/playing in a new offense.

But man, he did not look good.

He hit a lot of easy completions underneath, which I won't dock him for, but any quarterback worth a dime can complete those passes. 

He threw quite a few interceptable passes trying to improvise or throwing downfield. He missed wide open receivers at times. He benefited from some very nice play designs (e.g. the "touchdown" on the flip pass).

I didn't see a quarterback who was elevating his teammates or even playing within the system and hitting all the makeable throws. 

He threw a disastrous redzone interceptable ball that really should have been picked that could have changed the game. That could have been a pick 6.

And to those saying the Bears won the game "easily", yes they won the game. But that pick 6 saved them in what really wasn't a dominating performance. Their defense played very well yes. But Trubisky kept Seattle in the game.

Seattle isn't going to be good this year from all accounts. Their roster is absolutely horrendous and they weren't playing with Doug Baldwin. And they still were in this game.

Seattle has a terrific, perhaps HOF level QB, and a lot of other good players. They won't win many games this year, but they'll most likely be competitive in about half of them.

The first game really provided some better Trubisky highlights, but to anyone watching either game and declaring he doesn't have any potential, I'm at a loss as to what to say, except maybe forget about the trade, or his school, or the fact you hadn't watched him in college, or maybe I should suggest you pretend he's on a different team. 

The only thing I'm willing to label him is "not a sure-fire bust". But to dismiss him out of hand ignores what we've seen from him, and also his previous situation in Chicago.