Is Pace Trubisky Proof

[WindyCity]

I got into this debate on another board and I thought it was an interesting conversation.

Has Pace built the team and his resume to the point that he can survive the Trubisky evaluation and trade?

 

It was a pretty common thought that if Pace blew the Trubisky evaluation that he was going to get fired, but with the Mack trade and the Nagy hire has he protected himself enough. My thought is that he has drafted well enough and made the right coaching hire to the point where he can survive the Trubisky situation.

At this moment the Trubisky pick has to be looked at as a bad evaluation. On top of Trubisky currently being the 3rd best QB from that draft class, Pace doubled down on his evaluation by trading up. Now Trubisky may take a big step this season and move closer to Watson, but it does not appear he is ever going to be the best QB in the draft.

[soulman]

Why would anyone even care whether or not he's the best QB in his draft if wins games and becomes a franchise QB?

It's not even a debate worth having this early in his career.  JMHO

[dll2000]

Yes.  Pace is good for near future.  He hasn't been perfect, but his BA is way above previous Bears GMs and above most of rest of league in last 2 years.

Smith, Daniels, Miller, Nichols, Wims and Tolliver in UDFA was an amazing 2018 draft that looked good in year one.  It usually takes 2-3 years for a draft class to start looking good.

He landed most prized available player of 2018 in Khalil Mack who paid immediate dividends.  

2017 he got Jackson and Cohen after the MT trade.  2 pro bowlers in one draft is outstanding.  Jackson is arguable best player at his position.  

FA class of 2018 was built for 2019 season and IMO jury is still out as is the jury on MT.

I think it is clear that Mahomes is class of that draft and is best young QB in NFL.  But Pace was not alone in not realizing that.  I bet if you had truth serum Andy Reid takes MT over Mahomes given opportunity.   Nagy has said they were super high on him.

Watson has been better player, but it isn't at all clear that he will have better career.  

He seems to learn from his mistakes and improve.  I like how he has settled into a formula of plugging holes with cheap FAs and trying for great players in draft.  

 

 

 

 

 

[WindyCity]

7 minutes ago, soulman said:

Why would anyone even care whether or not he's the best QB in his draft if wins games and becomes a franchise QB?

It's not even a debate worth having this early in his career.  JMHO

Because you do not get rewarded for confidently trading up for the worst player at the position.

I agree if Trubisky takes a big step then it is probably a moot point.

But, based on what we have seen it was a really bad evaluation and there has to be some cost to that.

[dll2000]

I think people outside Bearsdom and many inside are too hard on MT.  

I was critical of individual games last year, but it wasn't anything I didn't expect going in.  You could see a huge drop-off when Daniel played and running game was mostly dismal.    

I think he is right on schedule where many of us predicted he would be.  

[WindyCity]

3 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I think people outside Bearsdom and many inside are too hard on MT.  

I was critical of individual games last year, but it wasn't anything I didn't expect going in.  You could see a huge drop-off when Daniel played and running game was mostly dismal.    

I think he is right on schedule where many of us predicted he would be.  

This is assuming he stays on that schedule.

I am not trying to be hard on Trubisky, I am trying to determine how much heat Pace should take if he clearly picked the worse QB in that draft?

[dll2000]

2 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

Because you do not get rewarded for confidently trading up for the worst player at the position.

I agree if Trubisky takes a big step then it is probably a moot point.

But, based on what we have seen it was a really bad evaluation and there has to be some cost to that.

Okay say you punish him for not taking best QB in 2017 draft.  Which historically speaking is fairly easy even for otherwise great GMs to do.  

Is losing Pace and replacing him a net gain for team going forward?

He seems be getting better at being a GM yearly.  I would say IMO he is a top 5 NFL GM right now.

I like what Indy, Eagles and Patriots are doing.  I put Bears in that group.   

[dll2000]

Just now, WindyCity said:

This is assuming he stays on that schedule.

I am not trying to be hard on Trubisky, I am trying to determine how much heat Pace should take if he clearly picked the worse QB in that draft?

Worst QB of 3 really good young QBs isn't so bad.

Bears, KC and Houston all won their divisions.  

[WindyCity]

25 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Okay say you punish him for not taking best QB in 2017 draft.  Which historically speaking is fairly easy even for otherwise great GMs to do.  

Is losing Pace and replacing him a net gain for team going forward?

He seems be getting better at being a GM yearly.  I would say IMO he is a top 5 NFL GM right now.

I like what Indy, Eagles and Patriots are doing.  I put Bears in that group.   

I do not think it would cost him his job.

But it would have to cost him some of the capital that he has built up, correct?

In the OP I was saying that I believe that Pace is now Trubisky proof. If it does turn out to be a mistake that it would not cost him his job. I am wondering how much of his banked credit it would cost him.

[WindyCity]

25 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Worst QB of 3 really good young QBs isn't so bad.

Bears, KC and Houston all won their divisions.  

Agreed, if Trubisky can get to really good then it costs him less of his credit.

[soulman]

1 hour ago, WindyCity said:

Because you do not get rewarded for confidently trading up for the worst player at the position.

I agree if Trubisky takes a big step then it is probably a moot point.

But, based on what we have seen it was a really bad evaluation and there has to be some cost to that.

That would be basing Pace's success/failure percentage on just one pick in one draft????

Sorry Windy, not gonna do it.

I'll also state that in my opinion Mahomes has peaked early helped by his coaching, his supporting cast, and the system he plays in.  Mitch will finally get a supporting cast equal to Mahomes this season and should have a better grasp of the offense with even more options to use.  I also don't believe Watson was ever a possibility in Chicago at all.  Mitch or Mahomes were the better fits and FWIW Mahomes may have been seen as too much like the "gunslinger" we'd just moved on from.  At any rate Trubisky was always my pick for Chicago as well.  Don't look back.  Look forward.

Mitch is far from the worst choice in that draft and if he manages a productive offense, we become an annual playoff team, and we compete for and/or win a Super Bowl there is no "penalty cost" to that period.  I will never buy into that.  It's off the wall thinking.

[yomyyo]

I’m not sure what’s bad about “the Trubisky situation.” He’s a talented young quarterback who’s already a fearsome running threat and is a rapidly improving passer. I’d take him over Watson now (I would have taken Watson before Tru in the draft). 

As mentioned above, KC would have taken Mitch, if he was available, before Mahomes. Mahomes also had the benefit of learning from an all-time great qb mentor and having the time to develop in a less harsh environment. Added to extensive college experience, his performance advantage to Mitch is understandable. Lastly, I doubt that ANYONE knew for certain that Mahomes’s playing style was going to translate to the NFL. 

If Mitch is good enough that the Bears can win a bunch of games, then it was a great pic. (Spoiler alert: he is.) The trade up was meaningless - see: Eagles, Rams, et. al.

[yomyyo]

Oh, and the Bears had 8 players in the pro bowl last season. And, multiple all pros. Pace acquired all of them. 

[WindyCity]

6 minutes ago, yomyyo said:

I’m not sure what’s bad about “the Trubisky situation.” He’s a talented young quarterback who’s already a fearsome running threat and is a rapidly improving passer. I’d take him over Watson now (I would have taken Watson before Tru in the draft). 

As mentioned above, KC would have taken Mitch, if he was available, before Mahomes. Mahomes also had the benefit of learning from an all-time great qb mentor and having the time to develop in a less harsh environment. Added to extensive college experience, his performance advantage to Mitch is understandable. Lastly, I doubt that ANYONE knew for certain that Mahomes’s playing style was going to translate to the NFL. 

If Mitch is good enough that the Bears can win a bunch of games, then it was a great pic. (Spoiler alert: he is.) The trade up was meaningless - see: Eagles, Rams, et. al.

At this point taking him over Watson is pure homerism.

Watson had a great, and far superior, season last year while getting killed behind a brutal OL.

We are not assessing the thought process, we are assessing the results, the NFL is a results business not a process business.

Edited May 15, 2019 by WindyCity

[WindyCity]

8 minutes ago, soulman said:

That would be basing Pace's success/failure percentage on just one pick in one draft????

Sorry Windy, not gonna do it.

I'll also state that in my opinion Mahomes has peaked early helped by his coaching, his supporting cast, and the system he plays in.  Mitch will finally get a supporting cast equal to Mahomes this season and should have a better grasp of the offense with even more options to use.  I also don't believe Watson was ever a possibility in Chicago at all.  Mitch or Mahomes were the better fits and FWIW Mahomes may have been seen as too much like the "gunslinger" we'd just moved on from.  At any rate Trubisky was always my pick for Chicago as well.  Don't look back.  Look forward.

Mitch is far from the worst choice in that draft and if he manages a productive offense, we become an annual playoff team, and we compete for and/or win a Super Bowl there is no "penalty cost" to that period.  I will never buy into that.  It's off the wall thinking.

No one has suggested that you base the entire evaluation on Trubisky.

The entire point is that he has built a roster and hired a coach that would make a mistake at QB survivable, which was  not the prevailing thought in 2017.