Bears to decline Trub's 5th year option

[Heinz D.]

21 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Can't disagree with this.

If (and I say if) the Lions, Giants, and Falcons defenses are as bad as they were last year then this is a good opportunity for Mitch to build up some confidence going into the hardest stretch of the season against Brady, Vikes, Rams, GB, and Saints.  

It's...so hard to know what to think about that scenario. Seriously. That is...conventional wisdom, we'll call it? But, we've seen Mitch break down mentally after having a pretty darn good entire season. So, this whole situation is sort of unprecedented. 

20 hours ago, G08 said:

Yup.

Give him an average offensive line and let's see what he can do.*

*average offensive line = not getting decked on 3 step drops, RBs not getting hit after gaining 1 yard.

The line should be a lot better. If not, we're screwed. But, yeah, see what happens with better line play...

16 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

If the team saw it this way there wouldn’t be a QB competition. Also, the alternative is Nick Foles who has a longer documented history of inconsistent play than Mitch does. 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your initial assertion, although I do agree with the bulk of your post, there. 

If those initial defenses remain bad, Mitch should light them up if he is indeed a starter. If he's just okay, and the Bears stick with him anyway, we could be looking at an unnecessary two to three game losing streak. 

At the risk of sounding like a Foles apologist, anybody who doesn't note that he's been thrust into ****ty situations is simply being either unrealistic, or needlessly critical. 

[G08]

23 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

If those initial defenses remain bad, Mitch should light them up if he is indeed a starter. If he's just okay, and the Bears stick with him anyway, we could be looking at an unnecessary two to three game losing streak. 

I think it's a slippery slope if we immediately judge Trubisky or Foles' performance the first 4 weeks of the season because the defenses they are facing weren't very good in 2019. It's irrelevant. It turns into that whole "anyone could have thrown 3 TDs against THEM" or "OMG how could he not throw 3 TDs against THEM?". Just gross.

[Heinz D.]

1 hour ago, G08 said:

I think it's a slippery slope if we immediately judge Trubisky or Foles' performance the first 4 weeks of the season because the defenses they are facing weren't very good in 2019. It's irrelevant. It turns into that whole "anyone could have thrown 3 TDs against THEM" or "OMG how could he not throw 3 TDs against THEM?". Just gross.

I don't know.

We've seen a lot of "bad Mitch" recently. 

[JAF-N72EX]

5 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

I don't know.

We've seen a lot of "bad Mitch" recently. 

I believe what he is essentially saying is that just because Mitch doesn't put up monster numbers in the first part of the season against bad defenses it doesn't mean that he wasn't good either. And I agree. There alot of factors that are involved that raw numbers don't show.

Aside from that, There are many factors at play here. The lack of off-season programs and the potential possibility of not having any preseason games could play a big part in ANY player's performance to start the year.

[AZBearsFan]

15 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your initial assertion, although I do agree with the bulk of your post, there. 

If those initial defenses remain bad, Mitch should light them up if he is indeed a starter. If he's just okay, and the Bears stick with him anyway, we could be looking at an unnecessary two to three game losing streak. 

You commented about an “inevitable implosion”. My response was about how if the team saw an inevitable implosion on the horizon that Mitch wouldn’t be getting a shot in a QB competition at all.

I do think there’s a significant difference between what we’ve seen from Mitch and an “implosion” though. To me 2006 Grossman vs. AZ was an implosion. What we’ve seen from Mitch is more a failure to execute consistently. To be clear, both are problematic. With Mitch it hasn’t been all that unlike Cutler IMO - when he’s on he’s really good (Dallas last year, Detroit every time), but when he’s not the lows have been really low.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Nagy & Co. to think if they can raise the levels and frequency of those low performances to mostly average performances with better scheme understanding that Mitch can be an asset at the QB spot. 1-2 QB clunkers a year is totally acceptable. Every QB has those occasionally. Also, 3-4 games in a season where we don’t score 20 points should be expected to happen regardless of how good our QB is. Of the top 5 scoring offenses in the league last year (BAL, KC, SF, TB and NO) only Baltimore and KC didn’t have at least 2 games under 20 points, and it’d be totally unrealistic to expect our offense to be that proficient this year. What can’t happen is 0 points at halftime in half our games.

15 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

At the risk of sounding like a Foles apologist, anybody who doesn't note that he's been thrust into ****ty situations is simply being either unrealistic, or needlessly critical. 

I don’t know that that’s true. He was the unchallenged starter in Philly in 2014 and played mostly meh football before breaking his collarbone midseason. He was then traded for Sam Bradford and was again the unchallenged starter for the Rams in 2015 before being benched for Case Keenum halfway through the season. Last year he wasn’t thrust into a bad situation - he chose the situation - and got hurt and then got outplayed by Minshew. He’s had several good opportunities to assert himself as the long term guy and come up short in all of them. Had he not Jeff Hostetlered the 2017 Eagles to a title he might not even be in the league right now. 

[WindyCity]

I am not putting any statistical markers on the first few games.

I am going to look at whether the offense is running efficiently.

 

The only statistical markers I am putting on him would be if he starts a majority of the season. If he can get 4000 yards, 30 Tds, sub 15 INTs, then I would be willing to talk extension with him. If he doesn't I think we can find a cheaper option for the production.

Edited May 20, 2020 by WindyCity

[GOGRIESE]

16 hours ago, G08 said:

It's funny listening to the Hoge and Jahn's podcast. 

Jahns, who usually I am lock-step with 100% (he stole my Drew Brees argument, btw) thinks that acquiring Nick Foles was the equivalent of the Bears having "the towel" in their hand. All they need to do is throw it in and Trubisky is done.

Hoge is on the other side of the fence, which is where I am: He thinks that outside of Foles showing up Trubisky in camp on a daily/nightly basis, Trubisky likely will be given his final chance to save his career this season. He thinks that once you pull Trubisky / bench him, you basically have ended his career in Chicago.

Yeah I agree with Hoge's take. Honestly though Foles showing up Trubisky everyday in camp is a possibility. Unless Mitch all the sudden can read defenses up to Foles level he's probably going to struggle in camp. 

[Nads786]

1 hour ago, GOGRIESE said:

Yeah I agree with Hoge's take. Honestly though Foles showing up Trubisky everyday in camp is a possibility. Unless Mitch all the sudden can read defenses up to Foles level he's probably going to struggle in camp. 

I just don't think Mitch has the mental ability to read defenses at the level Foles does. I think the job will be handed to Foles by the end of "training camp."

[G08]

2 hours ago, GOGRIESE said:

Yeah I agree with Hoge's take. Honestly though Foles showing up Trubisky everyday in camp is a possibility. Unless Mitch all the sudden can read defenses up to Foles level he's probably going to struggle in camp. 

Trubisky is kind of a practice hero from the rumblings I've heard over last season. For whatever reason, when it was game time he would miss throws that he routinely drilled in practice. Jitters? Nerves? Lack of confidence?

Reading NFL defenses isn't easy. David Carr said he didn't know how to do that until after his 2nd season in the NFL. He had 901 attempts in college, 739 attempts in the NFL before he learned how to do it. The statistic back that up, he was in the same system all three years (year 1 rating: 62.8, year 2 rating: 69.5, year 3 rating: 83.5)

 

For reference, Trubisky had 572 attempts in college, 950 attempts in this offense. It's put up or shut up time for Mitchell.

[GOGRIESE]

1 minute ago, G08 said:

Trubisky is kind of a practice hero from the rumblings I've heard over last season. For whatever reason, when it was game time he would miss throws that he routinely drilled in practice. Jitters? Nerves? Lack of confidence?

Reading NFL defenses isn't easy. David Carr said he didn't know how to do that until after his 2nd season in the NFL. He had 901 attempts in college, 739 attempts in the NFL before he learned how to do it. The statistic back that up, he was in the same system all three years (year 1 rating: 62.8, year 2 rating: 69.5, year 3 rating: 83.5)

 

For reference, Trubisky had 572 attempts in college, 950 attempts in this offense. It's put up or shut up time for Mitchell.

It's been a while but was Mitch good in camp last year? From what I can remember Nagy was saying one thing but writers at camp were saying he wasn't looking good. 

[G08]

56 minutes ago, GOGRIESE said:

It's been a while but was Mitch good in camp last year? From what I can remember Nagy was saying one thing but writers at camp were saying he wasn't looking good. 

Nooooo, he was awful last camp. Nagy said they were "overloading" him to see where he would break and were encouraging him to test the defense with deep shots.

I vividly remember a couple of the beat writers being like "this is going to be bad"

[GOGRIESE]

1 hour ago, G08 said:

Nooooo, he was awful last camp. Nagy said they were "overloading" him to see where he would break and were encouraging him to test the defense with deep shots.

I vividly remember a couple of the beat writers being like "this is going to be bad"

Yeah see I dont think that's going to change. Nick Foles knows this defense all too well by now. I think he wins the job easily. But that's just me. 

[Heinz D.]

11 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

You commented about an “inevitable implosion”. My response was about how if the team saw an inevitable implosion on the horizon that Mitch wouldn’t be getting a shot in a QB competition at all.

I do think there’s a significant difference between what we’ve seen from Mitch and an “implosion” though. To me 2006 Grossman vs. AZ was an implosion. What we’ve seen from Mitch is more a failure to execute consistently. To be clear, both are problematic. With Mitch it hasn’t been all that unlike Cutler IMO - when he’s on he’s really good (Dallas last year, Detroit every time), but when he’s not the lows have been really low.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Nagy & Co. to think if they can raise the levels and frequency of those low performances to mostly average performances with better scheme understanding that Mitch can be an asset at the QB spot. 1-2 QB clunkers a year is totally acceptable. Every QB has those occasionally. Also, 3-4 games in a season where we don’t score 20 points should be expected to happen regardless of how good our QB is. Of the top 5 scoring offenses in the league last year (BAL, KC, SF, TB and NO) only Baltimore and KC didn’t have at least 2 games under 20 points, and it’d be totally unrealistic to expect our offense to be that proficient this year. What can’t happen is 0 points at halftime in half our games.

I didn't parse it as if the regression was absolutely inevitable, though. Point being...we're basically all experiencing an unprecedented situation here. Kid was drafted, and the intention from the organization was to have him sit for most, if not all, of his first year. Then, the other guy they brought in to be the bridge was horrifying, and Mitch was thrown out there. Didn't do very well, but did show promise. Played in an offense kept profoundly vanilla by its head coach, who was, seemingly, constantly at war with his Offensive Coordinator. 

Next season? New coach. Offensive guy, too. And--a totally different story. Mitch came along, in a big way. As @G08 put it the other day, people can stand on their heads, look at things sideways, spout ridiculous or spurious arguments (that we all didn't see we we actually saw, basically)--but Mitch's second year, which can almost be properly defined as a real rookie season, was a good one. Full of promise, as folks say.

Fast forward. Head coach makes an number of bad decisions--some of them so horrible they near the borders of "beyond belief".Throw in a couple of key injuries, and yikes! Not at all good for a young quarterback, right?

But...let's keep in mind this was supposed to be a franchise guy? Well...what did we see from Mitch? Astoundingly bad stuff. Overthrows. Underthrows. Plays when he appeared to not understand what the offense was even trying to do. Not running when should. Running when he shouldn't. Spurts of terrible accuracy (and timing) to all parts of the field. 

Anyway--we all know this stuff. Why am I re-hashing it, and why did I bold the stuff at the end of your post there? Mitch can come out and be "okay" against bad defenses...and we can still be looking at 0-6 points. Nagy is never going to be a run-first guy. He's also never going to be a West Coast, "our passing can be our running" guy. This offense, to work properly, has to have at least above average quarterback play. And maybe that means Nagy needs to be fired, I don't know. 

It will be Mitch's fourth season, regardless. If he doesn't come out as the starter to begin the year, and plays well, I don't see how any of us can be certain a regression to "Bad Mitch" is more than just a sequence away...

Edited May 21, 2020 by Heinz D.

[G08]

3 hours ago, GOGRIESE said:

Yeah see I dont think that's going to change. Nick Foles knows this defense all too well by now. I think he wins the job easily. But that's just me. 

Let's say Nick Foles wins the job and keeps it for the next 3 seasons, averages aa TD to INT ratio around 2:1 and QB  rating of 89.

Are we happy?

[Sugashane]

9 minutes ago, G08 said:

Let's say Nick Foles wins the job and keeps it for the next 3 seasons, averages aa TD to INT ratio around 2:1 and QB  rating of 89.

Are we happy?

Not really with just that line. If he hits that line he will opt out imo. Then he's going to be making a significant pay raise and to me that isn't worth the $25mil or whatever he'd be making. I mean Minshrew bettered that stat line at each point.

I want to aim higher and if I'm going to settle for that production then I want it cheaper, so I can keep st as cling the team around the QB.

One of the biggest reasons to hire Nagy was getting an offensive system to master and developing a young QB. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sugashane