And the "controversy" begins...Rosenbloom

[wab]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ro ... olumn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would Mitch Trubisky have completed the Bears' winning drive that Mike Glennon couldn't?

If only the Bears had a young, dynamic quarterback who had the potential to be the star the franchise desperately needs.

If only the Bears had a guy with a quick release.

If only the Bears had someone who could threaten an opponent deep.

If only the Bears had a starter who was elusive and could keep plays alive, or at least stand a better chance of avoiding sacks.

If only the Bears had traded up in the draft to make sure they seized that kind of special talent.

Oh. Wait. Yeah. That’s right.

But instead of starting No. 2 overall draft choice Mitch Trubisky, Bears interim coach John Fox defaulted to playing the quarterback whose only asset, it appears, is he's less likely to lose the game instead of one who might win it.

The Bears were hoping they could shorten their season opener against the Falcons by running the ball and playing quality defense. They got both.

The Bears also were hoping they could hide Mike Glennon and pray he didn’t throw a pick. They got the latter, but not so much the former.

Glennon was inconsistent immediately and often.

After hitting Deonte Thompson on third-and-long, for instance, he missed some easy throws.

On one sack, Glennon was slow to climb the pocket. On another, he just kept retreating with no Plan B such as throwing it away.

On one third-and-long, the Bears called for a shallow crossing pass just to set up a punt, it appeared. On another third-and-4, Glennon overthrew Tarik Cohen.

At one point, Glennon went more than 26 minutes between completions from the second quarter to the end of the third. That’s some trust in a free-agent signing to whom the Bears guaranteed the starting job.

Glennon was slow to go through his reads and slow to release the ball. But hey, at least he threw the ball away one time instead of taking another sack.

And then, after this indifferent and irritating quarterback play, Fox put the game on Glennon’s right arm. Oy.

Yes, it almost worked. But of course it didn’t. It didn’t because Glennon isn’t that guy.

Yes, Glennon threw a TD pass to Cohen to make it close, but how much can you ask of him?

More than one was too much, it turns out. Two was too many.

On the final drive with the Bears trailing 23-17, Glennon converted a third-down pass to Kendall Wright and a fourth-down throw to Josh Bellamy. He hit Zach Miller on consecutive passes to get the Bears down to the Falcons 6.

Then Glennon led Bellamy too much in the end zone, which was followed by Jordan Howard’s dropped pass at the pylon, which preceded Glennon’s low throw to Miller in the end zone.

Which made it fourth-and-goal, and then Glennon was sacked because he didn’t get rid of the ball quickly and is about as elusive as a goal post. Unlike Trubisky. And this is pretty much where we came in.

Everybody saw Glennon’s limitations. He might make some plays, but he doesn’t make enough to win games. He doesn’t threaten downfield. He doesn’t worry a defense. Opponents know they can find him in the pocket just like the Falcons did at the end of the fourth quarter in the biggest play of the game.

I have no idea whether Trubisky would’ve come that close if he had played in place of Glennon. But you have to ask that out loud. The Bears are obligated to ask it. Maybe Trubisky already would’ve turned over the ball. Or maybe he would’ve lit up a Falcons team that stacked the box most of the game.

One thing I do know is that Trubisky will threaten a defense deep with his arm and will worry a defense with his legs. I believe he would’ve made the Bears more dangerous, and therefore, better.

Fox made sure to mention the Bears were in a one-score game, perhaps to justify Glennon, the game plan, his approach, all of it. The defense will make a lot of these games possible. Glennon will make most of them impossible to win.

[UOK]

I usually loathe Rosenbloom, but in this case I vehemently agree with him.

[wab]

Yeah, I agree with him and it makes me feel dirty.

[Mikefive]

Rosenbloom is a whiny baby, who acts like that to attract eyes.

Would playing Trubisky fix our crappy WR group? Oh. No mention of that.

Is Trubisky capable of running the entire offense? Or even managing the play clock? Nevermind that.

Will playing Trubisky now without full knowledge of the offense set his development back? Why would Rosenbloom consider that, since if it happened it would give him one more thing to bash the Bears about? Bonus!

I don't know why anyone listens to that guy.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

UGH! Look. We have talked about this ad nauseum. Glennon is our QB at least for the first half. I thought the non-meatballs were in agreement on this? Now that the bullets are flying all of that goes out the window. We knew we were going to see these limitations out of Glennon. No mobility, limited arm. Rosenbloom is looking for reactions like this. Of course he's right, but we all know why Trubisky has to sit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[karhu]

The usual bullshit from Rosenbloom. But hey, people are yelling, so he's doing his job the way he sees it.

[Atkins&Rebel]

Glennon protected the ball and did well enough in the conservative game plan. Then he did what he needed to get us into a position to win before having the team fail around him in 3 of the last 4 plays.

[wab]

UGH! Look. We have talked about this ad nauseum. Glennon is our QB at least for the first half. I thought the non-meatballs were in agreement on this? Now that the bullets are flying all of that goes out the window. We knew we were going to see these limitations out of Glennon. No mobility, limited arm. Rosenbloom is looking for reactions like this. Of course he's right, but we all know why Trubisky has to sit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you, but that also doesn't make Rosenbloom wrong (in this case).

[Rusty Trombagent]

Everyone is saying our wr group is complete dog shit, but once Glennon actually started looking at them in the fourth quarter they were getting open! They aren't world beaters, but we can still get things done with these guys.

Saying Mitch wouldn't be able to do anything with these wr's ignores the fact that he's not looking for the checkdown every throw.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

UGH! Look. We have talked about this ad nauseum. Glennon is our QB at least for the first half. I thought the non-meatballs were in agreement on this? Now that the bullets are flying all of that goes out the window. We knew we were going to see these limitations out of Glennon. No mobility, limited arm. Rosenbloom is looking for reactions like this. Of course he's right, but we all know why Trubisky has to sit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you, but that also doesn't make Rosenbloom wrong (in this case).

No. He's spot on. But he's pandering to the meatballs for a reaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boris13c]

I refuse to take Rosenbloom's meatball bait

Glennon didn't completely suck, but he did show exactly what type of QB he is ... and proved Pace way overpaid to acquire an average game manager with no pocket presence and no mobility

the article Rosenbloom should have written should have addressed that - why was Glennon considered such a prize acquisition by Ryan Pace? guess I'll address that in my own blog

[PC Load Letter]

Everyone is saying our wr group is complete dog shit, but once Glennon actually started looking at them in the fourth quarter they were getting open! They aren't world beaters, but we can still get things done with these guys.

Saying Mitch wouldn't be able to do anything with these wr's ignores the fact that he's not looking for the checkdown every throw.

Our WRs are complete dog shit. And that was with whatever Kevin White had to offer when on the field.

They were magically open in the 4th quarter because Atlanta was playing off and giving us everything in the middle of the field. Essentially playing the odds that we couldn't string together enough positive plays to actually score a TD....and they were right.

To do anything with these WRs you're really going to need to get creative and that means moving the pocket. That is literally off the table with Glennon in the game.

Glennon simply does not make anyone around him better. Our biggest plays came from Cohen turning nothing into something. Trubisky has that potential to do the same from the QB position. Glennon simply does not. Soon enough our coaches will realize it and make the switch. Just don't bank on John "white Lovie Smith" Fox to do it any time soon.

[PC Load Letter]

Rosenbloom is a whiny baby, who acts like that to attract eyes.

Would playing Trubisky fix our crappy WR group? Oh. No mention of that.

Is Trubisky capable of running the entire offense? Or even managing the play clock? Nevermind that.

Will playing Trubisky now without full knowledge of the offense set his development back? Why would Rosenbloom consider that, since if it happened it would give him one more thing to bash the Bears about? Bonus!

I don't know why anyone listens to that guy.

Just because we all despise the author doesn't automatically mean he's incorrect.

A QB that can escape pressure most definitely gives our crappy WRs more time to get open.

Our offense is incredibly limited with a QB as clumsy as Glennon. Is Glennon even capable of running the entire offense? Do you recall any times he checked us out of a bad play and into a good one?

I concede the playbook would probably be scaled back if Mitch played, but let's not pretend like Glennon's got the entire Greatest Show on Turf playbook at his disposal.

It's not outrageous to think the offense would benefit simply from Mitch being mobile and adding the element of bootlegs and rollouts to the playcalling. Glennon is a sitting giraffe back there. So yeah, the stats don't look terrible and he didn't have any picks, but we're not winning any games with a QB checking down all game.

Again, I don't think it's outrageous or meatbally -- just because meatbally columnists and fans are screaming the same thing.

[Mikefive]

Rosenbloom is a whiny baby, who acts like that to attract eyes.

Would playing Trubisky fix our crappy WR group? Oh. No mention of that.

Is Trubisky capable of running the entire offense? Or even managing the play clock? Nevermind that.

Will playing Trubisky now without full knowledge of the offense set his development back? Why would Rosenbloom consider that, since if it happened it would give him one more thing to bash the Bears about? Bonus!

I don't know why anyone listens to that guy.

Just because we all despise the author doesn't automatically mean he's incorrect.

A QB that can escape pressure most definitely gives our crappy WRs more time to get open.

Our offense is incredibly limited with a QB as clumsy as Glennon. Is Glennon even capable of running the entire offense? Do you recall any times he checked us out of a bad play and into a good one?

I concede the playbook would probably be scaled back if Mitch played, but let's not pretend like Glennon's got the entire Greatest Show on Turf playbook at his disposal.

It's not outrageous to think the offense would benefit simply from Mitch being mobile and adding the element of bootlegs and rollouts to the playcalling. Glennon is a sitting giraffe back there. So yeah, the stats don't look terrible and he didn't have any picks, but we're not winning any games with a QB checking down all game.

Again, I don't think it's outrageous or meatbally -- just because meatbally columnists and fans are screaming the same thing.

Fair point about Glennon and the playbook. I was thinking about that after I posted my response. There's a reason they're not calling naked boots for him. Still, there's a difference between not understanding what to do and understanding but lacking the physical attributes to being able to sucessfully execute.

And I'll keep reminding... Glennon and Trubisky are NOT the same thing. Glennon is a temporary placeholder who will likely be gone in a year. Trubisky is a long term investment that we need to nurture on the way to getting out of suckville and becoming a consistent playoff team in the near future. Will throwing him out there in week 2 be a positive for that development process or will sending him out with half the playbook that NFL DCs will adjust to set him back and/or result in his learning bad habits? THAT is the highest priority question to be asked when it comes to starting a highly drafted rookie QB, which Rosenbloom purposefully ignores.

Fans--particularly upset, ignorant ones--fall back on their basic instincts when things go wrong. It's easy to understand fans saying, "Glennon is limited and we lost. Trubisky might be better! So he should play now!" Rosenbloom is an expert at tapping into that. But somebody has to think this through, take the long term view and make decisions based on thoughtful teaching instead of emotions.

[PC Load Letter]

...
Trubisky is a long term investment that we need to nurture on the way to getting out of suckville and becoming a consistent playoff team in the near future. Will throwing him out there in week 2 be a positive for that development process or will sending him out with half the playbook that NFL DCs will adjust to set him back and/or result in his learning bad habits? THAT is the highest priority question to be asked when it comes to starting a highly drafted rookie QB, which Rosenbloom purposefully ignores.

Fans--particularly upset, ignorant ones--fall back on their basic instincts when things go wrong. It's easy to understand fans saying, "Glennon is limited and we lost. Trubisky might be better! So he should play now!" Rosenbloom is an expert at tapping into that. But somebody has to think this through, take the long term view and make decisions based on thoughtful teaching instead of emotions.

But we're already limiting our playbook and not asking Glennon to do too much. I just don't think Mitch would have been overwhelmed being asked to do what we asked Glennon to do yesterday or that it'd be negative for his development.

Honest question - and ignoring the whole "don't wanna ruin the rookie" thing - do you think it's a real possibility Mitch could have played as well if not better than Glennon did yesterday with the same gameplan?

I'm not even someone that was banging the table that Mitch must start week 1 (although I despise the notion of not having an open competition). I just think it's silly that suggesting Mitch could perform better if asked to do the same thing automatically means it's simply emotional.

[Adipost]

Glennon had 13 net yards through 3 quarters yesterday. You need two all pro offensive tackles to keep him upright, he's a scarecrow in the pocket. He totally negates his superior interior line because he seemingly cannot physically step up into the pocket to avoid edge pressure. Massie drove his guy 15 yards behind the line of scrimmage on the final play, and Glennon still found a way to get sacked. Pathetic

[Hematite]

The only good from playing Glennon all year is that we end up with a top 2 or 3 pick next year and trade down for a hefty ransom which we use for a LT/WR/OLB combo that helps cement Trubisky's Hall of Fame career for the beloved. I can wait....what's 1 more year.

[Moriarty]

The usual bullshit from Rosenbloom. But hey, people are yelling, so he's doing his job the way he sees it.

I'm not sure he is. I think he may be doing his job in a way that sells.

Much like certain political commentators, who I'll refrain from naming due to site rules, he seems to be spewing bullshit that he knows suckers will eat up, even if he himself knows better.

He comes off like a complete idiot in print, but seems more sensible when I've caught him on the radio (WSCR).

[Moriarty]

And I'll keep reminding... Glennon and Trubisky are NOT the same thing. Glennon is a temporary placeholder who will likely be gone in a year. Trubisky is a long term investment that we need to nurture on the way to getting out of suckville and becoming a consistent playoff team in the near future. Will throwing him out there in week 2 be a positive for that development process or will sending him out with half the playbook that NFL DCs will adjust to set him back and/or result in his learning bad habits? THAT is the highest priority question to be asked when it comes to starting a highly drafted rookie QB, which Rosenbloom purposefully ignores.

Fans--particularly upset, ignorant ones--fall back on their basic instincts when things go wrong. It's easy to understand fans saying, "Glennon is limited and we lost. Trubisky might be better! So he should play now!" Rosenbloom is an expert at tapping into that. But somebody has to think this through, take the long term view and make decisions based on thoughtful teaching instead of emotions.

Well put

[docc]

I do NOT read anything Rosenshit writes..just an assbag taking over from the last assbag,,who at least has a brother that is a great chef..

Rosenassbag..

[Moriarty]

Honest question - and ignoring the whole "don't wanna ruin the rookie" thing - do you think it's a real possibility Mitch could have played as well if not better than Glennon did yesterday with the same gameplan?

I'm not even someone that was banging the table that Mitch must start week 1 (although I despise the notion of not having an open competition). I just think it's silly that suggesting Mitch could perform better if asked to do the same thing automatically means it's simply emotional.

You can't "ignore the whole 'don't wanna ruin the rookie thing'". That is the one and only point that matters.

It sounds like you are able to separate the 2 issues. But most people on full meatball aren't. They're only asking the first one (where the answer is possibly, but far from certain) and ignoring the second one entirely.

(And FTR, I don't think Mitch would have had much chance of doing better with the same gameplan. They called a very conservative "don't make any mistakes" gameplan and Mitch almost certainly would have made more mistakes.)

[Mikefive]

Honest question - and ignoring the whole "don't wanna ruin the rookie" thing - do you think it's a real possibility Mitch could have played as well if not better than Glennon did yesterday with the same gameplan?

Well for starters, Loggains has admitted that Trubisky would have a different gameplan that Glennon. So it's not what would happen. But you asked for an answer, so... Honestly, Glennon looked to be doing pretty much one read and dumpoff all day. Do I think Biscuit would've done better at that? Very possibly. And if they mixed in some rollouts, that would've played to his strength and ended up with an even better result.

Still, I don't care about short term gains, because they may very well come with instilling bad habits in our QB of the future. I'd much rather think long term and let Trubisky gain a complete grasp of the offense on the bench and in practice and suffer with what Glennon gives us for now, even if it's more losing. And when Biscuit knows how to execute the full offense, THEN (and only then) let him play and learn what defenses will do to him at full NFL speed.

[G08]

I'll say it: we win that game with Trubisky under center.

[PC Load Letter]

You can't "ignore the whole 'don't wanna ruin the rookie thing'". That is the one and only point that matters.

It sounds like you are able to separate the 2 issues. But most people on full meatball aren't. They're only asking the first one (where the answer is possibly, but far from certain) and ignoring the second one entirely.

(And FTR, I don't think Mitch would have had much chance of doing better with the same gameplan. They called a very conservative "don't make any mistakes" gameplan and Mitch almost certainly would have made more mistakes.)

Not if you don't subscribe to that theory in all situations
Do you think Carson Wentz is better off right now because he played last season or that was a bad experience he didn't benefit from?

I really think you need to look at it on a case by case basis when it comes to these things. If it's a team where you're not going to be getting behind by 28 points and sticking the QB back there for defenses to tee off on, then I don't think it's going to hurt the QB to be in that position. I think with our defense, o-line and running game, we are a pretty safe team to ask a QB to step into.

I simply see more positives than negatives for Mitch to play sooner than later in our specific situation.

[PC Load Letter]

Well for starters, Loggains has admitted that Trubisky would have a different gameplan that Glennon. So it's not what would happen. But you asked for an answer, so... Honestly, Glennon looked to be doing pretty much one read and dumpoff all day. Do I think Biscuit would've done better at that? Very possibly. And if they mixed in some rollouts, that would've played to his strength and ended up with an even better result.

Still, I don't care about short term gains, because they may very well come with instilling bad habits in our QB of the future. I'd much rather think long term and let Trubisky gain a complete grasp of the offense on the bench and in practice and suffer with what Glennon gives us for now, even if it's more losing. And when Biscuit knows how to execute the full offense, THEN (and only then) let him play and learn what defenses will do to him at full NFL speed.

Quite honestly...until we get some actual NFL WRs, we aren't going to have a full NFL offense gameplan even if we had Joe Montana back there.

As I said in my post above this, I don't see us putting Mitch into a situation where he'd get killed and get shell shocked or create these bad habits. We're way closer to the Eagles/Wentz and Seahawks/Wilson situation than we are something like the Texans/Carr situation.

[wab]

The Bears offensive looked like shit Sunday, but that same line would look better than above average if they had a QB back there that could move around in the pocket. That's what they are built for...they are movers, that's their game. They are not guys (with the exception of maybe Sitton) who are going to stand there and stonewall their guy.

[malk]

I still don't see where all the sit the rookie crowd get their confidence in it being a great idea from. As has been said, you don't put him out there to get killed physically if your line is terrible or psychologically if your defence is awful (and he throws loads of interceptions chasing games).

I don't think we'd be doing that so I want him to get a lot of experience this year. It didn't have to be from game one but it might as well have been.

[Boris13c]

I'll say it: we win that game with Trubisky under center.

I'm guessing he would have completed the TD pass to Cohen in the endzone that Glennon threw short, allowing the defender to recover ... and that 1 TD alone would have made the difference in both team attitude and results

but instead of leading Cohen to the corner (where he was headed) he left it short requiring Cohen to slow and then be ganged up on

at the time maybe people didn't do anything more than shrug ... but you look at it more closely and it shows the flaws and failings of Beaker as our QB ... and the exact thing wab pointed out (in a different thread) - how slow Beaker is to read and act

hopefully Glennon is capable of stepping things up and does so ... he should be properly motivated against Tamp Bay ... I would greatly prefer this game shows why Pace was so engorged to sign him rather than show why the Bucs weren't worried about losing him

so while I might not agree with Rosenbloom, this CBS Sports article makes some sense and has the clip of the missed TD to Cohen :

Why the Bears should bench Mike Glennon and just start the Mitchell Trubisky era

[Mikefive]

You can't "ignore the whole 'don't wanna ruin the rookie thing'". That is the one and only point that matters.

It sounds like you are able to separate the 2 issues. But most people on full meatball aren't. They're only asking the first one (where the answer is possibly, but far from certain) and ignoring the second one entirely.

(And FTR, I don't think Mitch would have had much chance of doing better with the same gameplan. They called a very conservative "don't make any mistakes" gameplan and Mitch almost certainly would have made more mistakes.)

Not if you don't subscribe to that theory in all situations
Do you think Carson Wentz is better off right now because he played last season or that was a bad experience he didn't benefit from?

I really think you need to look at it on a case by case basis when it comes to these things. If it's a team where you're not going to be getting behind by 28 points and sticking the QB back there for defenses to tee off on, then I don't think it's going to hurt the QB to be in that position. I think with our defense, o-line and running game, we are a pretty safe team to ask a QB to step into.

I simply see more positives than negatives for Mitch to play sooner than later in our specific situation.

I agree that it's a case by case basis.

On Carson Wentz, I haven't watched enough of him to make a judgement on that. But your implication is somewhat flawed. If starting right away was good for Carson Wentz, that doesn't mean it would be good for Mitch Trubisky.

I'll also some back to another point I've made several times... If you start a player too early, there's a big penalty for doing that. You set the player back, get him bad habits, damage his confidence and in the worst case you can ruin him. But if you start a player too late--after he's ready to play without hurting his development--the penalty is relatively small. You start the next phase of his development later than you could have by that time period. But you definitely won't hurt him or ruin him. All you lose is... time. The moral of that story is that it pays to be conservative.

[Mikefive]

I'll say it: we win that game with Trubisky under center.

I'm guessing he would have completed the TD pass to Cohen in the endzone that Glennon threw short, allowing the defender to recover ... and that 1 TD alone would have made the difference in both team attitude and results

but instead of leading Cohen to the corner (where he was headed) he left it short requiring Cohen to slow and then be ganged up on

at the time maybe people didn't do anything more than shrug ... but you look at it more closely and it shows the flaws and failings of Beaker as our QB ... and the exact thing wab pointed out (in a different thread) - how slow Beaker is to read and act

hopefully Glennon is capable of stepping things up and does so ... he should be properly motivated against Tamp Bay ... I would greatly prefer this game shows why Pace was so engorged to sign him rather than show why the Bucs weren't worried about losing him

so while I might not agree with Rosenbloom, this CBS Sports article makes some sense and has the clip of the missed TD to Cohen :

Why the Bears should bench Mike Glennon and just start the Mitchell Trubisky era

One thing your analysis doesn't take into account is that Glennon is on a new team with new coaches and receivers. That kind of change impacts his ability to make quicker decisions. Does he have a thorough understanding of the offense without thinking at all? Does he know the tendancies of his receiving corps? This significant lack of cohesiveness can be explained by the virtually complete turnover of the offense. I think it's fair to assume that Glennon will improve with time on this.