Heinz D. Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If you think Pace makes that trade without belieiving in Trubisky, I've got a bridge to sell you. You don't give up that kind of draft capital without a QB in place. For sure. Pace obviously thought Trubisky was going to be really good, and quickly. (After the Nagy hire.) 21 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: No, they didn't believe in the TEAM. They thought the Bears were going to have a worse record than the Packers in 2018 and they would end up with a high draft pick. Needless to say, they were wrong. They were wrong, but it wasn't a bad call on their part. I mean, new coach, young QB (who'd been under Fox the year before), young players at any number of important positions... 2 minutes ago, G08 said: This had nothing to do with Trubisky. Stop it. No, I don't think the Raiders expecting Trubisky to fail was the linchpin of that deal. Why on earth would they have been counting on that? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: For sure. Pace obviously thought Trubisky was going to be really good, and quickly. (After the Nagy hire.) They were wrong, but it wasn't a bad call on their part. I mean, new coach, young QB (who'd been under Fox the year before), young players at any number of important positions... No, I don't think the Raiders expecting Trubisky to fail was the linchpin of that deal. Why on earth would they have been counting on that? I agree with this. Nobody could imagine the amount of impact that Mack would have on the team and no one in their right mind thought the Bears would be a 12 win team. So yeah, it wasn't a bad call.....just unfortunate for them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G08 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 At the end of the day, we got Khalil Mack and Cole Kmet for Josh Jacobs, Damon Arnette and Bryan Edwards. Factor in his contract and it's still a home-run for the Bears. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 19 minutes ago, G08 said: At the end of the day, we got Khalil Mack and Cole Kmet for Josh Jacobs, Damon Arnette and Bryan Edwards. Factor in his contract and it's still a home-run for the Bears. Agreed, the only thing wrong with it was the timing of not having a first round pick to fix the QB this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G08 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, RunningVaccs said: Agreed, the only thing wrong with it was the timing of not having a first round pick to fix the QB this year. I think, regardless, you need to give your young QB at least 3 years in the same system. That is this year for Mitch. If he ****s the bed, I'm sure we'll be drafting a QB in 2020 and/or 2021. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, G08 said: I think, regardless, you need to give your young QB at least 3 years in the same system. That is this year for Mitch. If he ****s the bed, I'm sure we'll be drafting a QB in 2020 and/or 2021. How many games are you willing to lose to evaluate him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, G08 said: I think, regardless, you need to give your young QB at least 3 years in the same system. That is this year for Mitch. If he ****s the bed, I'm sure we'll be drafting a QB in 2020 and/or 2021. You mean 2021 and/or 2022? Lol I hope he or Foles does well but I'm not expecting it. Here's a question though. If the offense flops does Pace fire Nagy if he gets to keep his own job? Position coaches were axed, OC was aced, it looks like Nagy is the next in line if the offense sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, CWood21 said: From an economics standpoint, it's hard to build a team with expensive players. Every fan of a team's rival says that, right? I'm a huge Hawks fan. You know what the analytics say? The Hawks paid too much to Kane, Toews, and Keith. And guess what I say? I'd take those 3 Cups in 6 years over their **** analytics. You'd take that for the Packers and I'd give up my left nut for that to happen to the Bears. In today's NFL the cap not only continues to rise annually but it can be manipulated with relative ease. After the Mack trade, the Bears still managed to extend Jackson and Trevathan. They still found a way to pay Massie. They even found a way to pay Quinn and Graham in free agency... and you know what else is going to happen soon? They'll be extending Robinson. The Mack trade hasn't prevented the Bears from doing anything financially. And for another sport comparison- WAR in baseball is becoming a very thought out and regarded stat. The NFL season is roughly 10% of the MLB's. In the MLB, a WAR over 5 is wonderful. Mack's WAR, if it was a stat in football, would be close to 0.5-0.75. He easily was responsible for 2-3 wins in 2018 and probably 1-2 more in 2019. He's a top 15 player in football and that trade was, is and always will be a no brainer. Edited May 17, 2020 by beardown3231 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G08 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 34 minutes ago, abstract_thought said: How many games are you willing to lose to evaluate him? He's, what, 23-18 in games he has started in the NFL. With Matt Nagy, he's 19-10. Why are you thinking Trubisky starting = losses, when his career has literally proven the opposite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G08 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 35 minutes ago, Sugashane said: You mean 2021 and/or 2022? Lol Oof, I sure do mean 2021 and/or 2022 lol, my bad 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 2 hours ago, G08 said: This had nothing to do with Trubisky. Stop it. Keep telling yourself that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, G08 said: He's, what, 23-18 in games he has started in the NFL. With Matt Nagy, he's 19-10. Why are you thinking Trubisky starting = losses, when his career has literally proven the opposite? I'm not making any statement about likelihood. I'm asking how many losses you'd accept this season to give him a fair evaluation. If, like last season, the team starts 3-3 with the offense being the obvious limiting factor, would you replace Trubisky with Foles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G08 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 1 minute ago, abstract_thought said: I'm not making any statement about likelihood. I'm asking how many losses you'd accept this season to give him a fair evaluation. If, like last season, the team starts 3-3 with the offense being the obvious limiting factor, would you replace Trubisky with Foles? Oh I see what you're saying... honestly I'd have him on a short leash if he wins the competition. 4 game increments. We can go 3-1 but if he's playing like trash in all 4 games, we'd have to pull him for Foles. If he's making plays, making the correct reads but we aren't scoring points or the defense is getting smacked around, I wouldn't yank him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: Keep telling yourself that. What are you basing that on? Is there something out there that indicates the Raiders hated Trubisky? Or are you simply arguing from a position of fanboy arrogance? 59 minutes ago, G08 said: Oh I see what you're saying... honestly I'd have him on a short leash if he wins the competition. 4 game increments. We can go 3-1 but if he's playing like trash in all 4 games, we'd have to pull him for Foles. If he's making plays, making the correct reads but we aren't scoring points or the defense is getting smacked around, I wouldn't yank him. Four games? I don't know. If he stinks it up again...four games is a quarter of the season. That's an awfully long third "tryout". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted May 18, 2020 Share Posted May 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Heinz D. said: What are you basing that on? Is there something out there that indicates the Raiders hated Trubisky? Or are you simply arguing from a position of fanboy arrogance? Four games? I don't know. If he stinks it up again...four games is a quarter of the season. That's an awfully long third "tryout". I can see what he means. OAK saw his film when Fox was HC, so it wasnt too far fetched to think that was a fair sample of his ability. They might have disliked him in their predraft process, even if they only briefly looked at him in case he fell. Then Fuller's jump, EJax emerging as a dominant FS, Hicks being one of the best DLs in the game etc and it wa as a surprise to all of us how well they did. I mean we knew there was talent but to be THAT good was shocking imo. Add in Chicagos historic bumbling with QBs and they had house odds. It should be an open tryout. Tru earned the starting gig for 2019, but his play in 2019 didn't earn him the starting role this year. If anything it raised concerns that we needed a true starter to challenge him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.