RustyTrubisky wrote: Rich Campbell@Rich_Campbell Aug 10
I think it's fair to say Trubisky was better tonight than he has been in any practice we've watched. Turns out dude's a gamer.
This is why I'm not worried about mitch starting this season. For every aarron rodgers who sat for awhile, there's a roethlisberger, wilson, matt ryan, stafford, prescott, carr, luck, manning etc who's been thrown in the fire and done very well.
The answer to this question should depend on the state of the offense. If the OL is playing like it played with Glennon in the first PS game, absolutely positively leave Trubisky on the bench. I'd say that playing Trubisky this year should depend on three factors in order of importance...Mikefive wrote:
I was completely on the "sit Trubisky until week 11" train but shit man... if he's looking good and Glennon shits the bed early on in the season, I might start him week 6 (@Ravens, vs Panthers, @Saints, BYE WEEK, vs Packers).
1. The OL needs to be playing reasonably well.
2. The running game needs to be decent and reliable.
3. He needs to have a go to receiver.
Sending him out there with a bad OL is a prescription for disaster.
Here's the thing; we do have an above average OL, and we do have an above average running game. we may not have a true #1 WR, but it's not the complete group of scrubs that people make it out to be. We have very good TE's as well.
Actually most importantly, we have an OC who is going to play to mitch's strengths instead of some mike martz motherfucker pushing a square peg into a round hole.
Mitch is a fuckin gamer. He needs reps against real NFL defenses, he doesnt need to be leading the scout team. Dowell will slowly bring him along each week adding new concepts as we go. Mike Glennon will cry himself to sleep every night on a large pile of money and maybe eke out a career as the next ryan fitzpatrick.
It's basically rex vs orton all over again and it's time to unleash the dragon.[/quote]
I beg to differ on your first point. There are many more QBs who have been destroyed by throwing them out there right away. One of them named Carr, ironically. And let's remember what EVERYONE said about this draft... That there's no Peyton Mannings or Andrew Lucks. So those on your "started right away and did fine" list who came out with resumes like those guys, you should eliminate from your list as it's not a fair comparison.
In your second point, you say our running game and OL are good. Really? Is that what you saw when Mike Glennon was playing? I sure didn't. Last year was last year. Now is now. We need to assess based on what's happening today, not some other time. Now maybe they'll get it together and that stuff will come around when Kyle Long returns. That would be great. But we need to see it before we decide that's what we have.
Here's the thing... There's a point where Trubisky's degree of development in concert with the quality of the team around him makes it a winning proposition to play him. If you play him before that time, you will retard his development or damage him to the point of destroying his career. But if you play him after he's already been ready for some time, then you haven't lost anything long term, just development time. Do you think the Packers are kicking themselves for not playing Rodgers sooner? For me, I err on the side of caution and playing Biscuit when I feel comfortable that I'm not damaging him. He's a long term investment. And I'm looking through that lens when I'm deciding when to play him.