Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
malagabears

Bears to decline Trub's 5th year option

Recommended Posts

For the record, my stance has always been that it takes 3 years to learn this system, 5 years to master it. I don't think the offensive line, run game, or Nagy's playcalling did Trubisky or the offense any favors last season, either.

Regardless, this season is put-up-or-shut-up for me and Mitch Trubisky. I'm of the opinion he will be the starter week 1 (pending health, etc) and will have 3-4 games to play and play well. If he ****s the bed those 3-4 games, his career in Chicago is likely over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, G08 said:

That's hilarious, we "attacked" his claim that Trubisky has "never been okay' and he's the one that then qualified it with in a season.

It's perfectly fine to attack an argument. Attack the argument, respect the person. 

If you prefer I'll say 'disputed' next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, G08 said:

For the record, my stance has always been that it takes 3 years to learn this system, 5 years to master it. I don't think the offensive line, run game, or Nagy's playcalling did Trubisky or the offense any favors last season, either.

Regardless, this season is put-up-or-shut-up for me and Mitch Trubisky. I'm of the opinion he will be the starter week 1 (pending health, etc) and will have 3-4 games to play and play well. If he ****s the bed those 3-4 games, his career in Chicago is likely over.

This is a reasonable take, particularly the second paragraph. I think pretty much everyone is with you in that boat. No more excuses for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2020 at 3:36 PM, abstract_thought said:

To be fair, a lot of teams didn't view Trubisky as a legit franchise QB in the NFL. It was considered a weaker QB draft with some obviously flawed prospects.

Exactly...which is why I can't sit here and bash Pace for taking him over the other guys. 

Analysts and likely GMs were all over the place with their rankings of that year's QB class.

It's an extremely tough position to evaluate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Exactly...which is why I can't sit here and bash Pace for taking him over the other guys. 

Analysts and likely GMs were all over the place with their rankings of that year's QB class.

It's an extremely tough position to evaluate.

I think something like 10% of first round QBs 'hit'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ForteOz said:

Generally I am the last person to jump to these kinds of conclusions. If you were to ask me why Kaep never got another contract, I would say 'because he got worse every year he was in the league, and by the time he was benched he was awful, and now clearly has higher priorities than football'.

But I am willing to at least entertain the thought that Pace sure does seem to have his ideal of what the right QB 'looks' like. Whether consciously or subconsciously, and clearly to his own detriment.

Trubs, Watson, Mahomes and he picks Trubs.

Bridgewater, Winston, Cam available as FA's and he trades for Foles. IDK man, might be something there.

Or maybe we are drawing conclusions from relatively small sample sizes and that is not fair. 

You know, like taking the guy with 1 season of college ball production and great intangibles over the rest of the (more productive) field... :D

 

Hopefully Pace puts this conspiracy theory to bed next year and takes a good hard look at someone like Winston, or Cam (if healthy).

Also FWIW, lots of people hated the pick, and especially the trade up, the second it was made.

 

Bears were apparently in on Bridegwater before trading for Foles, but it's been reported that Teddy balked at the idea of coming in to "compete" with Mitch so he moved on to Carolina where he is now the unquestioned starter. 

To be honest I'm glad they didn't sign Teddy after hearing that and I'm also glad they didn't sign Cam because both of these guys aren't that great of QBs to have this sense of entitlement that they deserve to be the starter without having to earn it with their play on the field.

Cam had always been a two trick pony. Big arm and a running QB but his accuracy and decision making has always sucked and his attitude stinks also.

Last thing I'll ask is do some of you guys actually not realize why they got Foles over these other bums you wanted then to sign? Just think about it deeply for a bit and put the racist accusations aside please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wNM7oDo.jpg

c6fF5Ko.jpg

Top wop with no foresight 

Cue3b9k.jpg

madmike not only loving on Tru but subtly hating on Mahomes

S2efNSm.jpg

Gogriese of all people being happy about something 

guo76C6.jpg

tubJ8I6.jpg

Cbears being unnervingly sassy 

RErw3Ga.jpg

Finally remembered what this knot was from 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

The throwback to my Devin.Fart quote in @CBears019’s sig made my week. Thanks @Tyty

Totally forgot about devin.fart!  lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, G08 said:

That's hilarious, we "attacked" his claim that Trubisky has "never been okay' and he's the one that then qualified it with in a season.

I don't really care what anyone's opinion is on Trubisky, it's the hyperbole bull**** that gets old in this city.

I am not the one that said he's never been okay. Don't try to duck out from under that. Words have meaning, be clear :)

I'll leave it at this:

Me saying "never been okay" and you qualifying it before allowing me to qualify it was unfair. If you actually thought- and I doubt you did, rather it was your way to "win an argument"- that it could be for... say... 5 seconds at any point in his career, then yeah, you're right. He's made some nice passes in his career. Frank Omiyale was "better than okay" at times, too, and we all know how stupid that sounds.

Trubisky was below average year one (probably worse but I'm willing to give him a mulligan thanks to his dips*** HC and dips*** OC), slightly below average in year two (I do think an argument can be made that he was a tad better than that, but aside from 1 game, he wasn't anything close to special), and well below average/borderline bad in year 3. By that standard, he's never been "better than okay" in any season. Maybe your standard is different & perhaps @Heinz D.'s is also. That's fine. I'm sick of settling for this up and down garbage from this position on my favorite team, though.

The Bears wouldn't be taking all of the measures they have- trading for Foles, declining Trubisky's option- if they thought Trubisky can be a solid, consistent player. Those decisions say it all to me. He may need 3 years in the offense, and CMIIW, but most players begin to improve as the 3 year time frame passes. Trubisky got significantly worse. He looked much more indecisive and clueless. He played with zero football IQ. That doesn't bode well for year 3.

Speaking of favorite team, how is what I'm doing hyperbole? Couldn't it be said what you're doing is hyperbole? Taking a big picture look, which is what I'm doing, isn't hyperbole imo. Taking a game by game approach is what drives me nuts & why I stopped listening to sports radio, and to me that's the highest degree of hyperbole out there. Joe in Skokie & Salvatore in Wheaton love <player x> one week and hates him the next. That's the hyperbole that drives me apes*** in this city.

I don't remember who I wanted Pace to draft, but I agree with him when he said "I took a QB because the plan is to never pick that high again." I probably wanted Watson, but I remember being psyched it was a QB in general. It's too bad the guy stinks, but I won't fault Pace for trying. I will fault him for missing badly.

I do agree with what you said- this is clearly his last year here unless he's really good, odds that imo are not in his favor. I'm not sure he ever gets the chance. While some people think he gets 3-4 games, I don't. Foles didn't restructure how he did & voluntarily leave a place where he knew he wouldn't play to come to a place where he also knew he wouldn't start. We'll see.

I have a 13 day old at home and I'm a first time father, all while I work 50-60 hours a week. I don't have time to look up the Pro Bowl thing, unless @CBears019 wants to freeze the board and allow me to go through thousands of posts for the next 2-3 months (doubt it :) ) and perhaps it wasn't you who's come back to it multiple times, but I know someone has, and I apologize if it was someone else.

Agree to disagree, in conclusion.

 

Edited by beardown3231

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

Back to the Pro Bowl argument huh?

Again take out his 2.5 quarters vs Tampa and try to explain why he went to the almighty Pro Bowl.

I have always hated this tactic, if you take away anybody's best moments you get a completely different result.  The only way to be fair in doing this is to take away the worst as well.  You eliminate the statistical anomalies.  If you do this you end up with Tru throwing 17 tds and 8 Ints in 12 games, which if you then prorate that to 16 games you get 24 and 12.  Exactly the same.  As Parcells always said you are what you're record says you are.  And to say hes never been ok is just so blatantly false.  Has there EVER been a game where you can say that Tru was the reason the team lost?  Theres been games hes been the reason the team won, theres been games that the team won in spite of him, and there have been games where the team lost in spite of him.  I cant think of a single game where you can point to and say Tru cost the team that game.  That is the definition of ok.  That is a game manager.  What he hasnt been is GREAT for an extended period of time.  We didn't draft him to be a game manager, we drafted him to be GREAT.  Ok isnt good enough, not for this staff, not for the draft position, and not for the money he will be looking for on a 2nd contract.  He has to be GREAT this year.  And if he is, it's a win for everybody, if hes not then he will be elsewhere and the Bears will be back in the QB market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the sequel to Dante's Inferno he adds on several circles of hell, and 11 is the Trubisky debate in which we argue in which ways and to what degree he is bad

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players have  miracle comebacks and they're wonderful stories but how much do they represent reality for players that have underperformed?  I really like Trubisky (he was my 2nd or thrd rating QB that year behind Watson and KIZER ) but for thsoe of you who are saying he's still got a chance,  if you had to put a likelihood on it, what woudl you call it?  I think even the most optimistic of you would say it's pretty slim.  I think it's very unlikely, especially here, that he turns it around.  I think his best shot is to get cut, go somewhere like NE where they will have him backup annd take the pressure off, and then has some unlikely late career bounce. 

There's a quote floating around on every inspiring and woke girls social media that says something like "when someone shows you who they are, believe them" Listen to those girls on Trubisky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I have always hated this tactic, if you take away anybody's best moments you get a completely different result.  The only way to be fair in doing this is to take away the worst as well.  You eliminate the statistical anomalies.  If you do this you end up with Tru throwing 17 tds and 8 Ints in 12 games, which if you then prorate that to 16 games you get 24 and 12.  Exactly the same.

I've hated it as well. Why are you removing strong performances? Because it doesn't fit the narrative one is trying to spin?

It's not easy to throw 6 TDs in a game. To scoff at that and remove it from results, to me, is disingenuous and preposterous.

Beautiful work on removing his worst game as well, extrapolating, and getting the same results, cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

And to say hes never been ok is just so blatantly false.

This was 100% my point. The statement is inflammatory, hyperbole and just so mind-numbingly false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×