10.9.17 // Loss - Bears 17, Vikings 20

[Mikefive]

Just because that is how things are often done, doesn't mean it's the best approach. If the primary goal is to maximize opportunity for success in developing THIS QB to be our leader for the next decade and a half, you sit him for the better part of a year or the whole year. If the primary goal is to placate fans for short term gain in attendance, you throw him in now because Glennon sucks. It all depends on what your highest priority is. The Bears have made their choice.

Are those the only two choices.

I'd like to posit a third choice:

Mitch exceeded expectations and the Bears felt it was in both Mitch's and the Bear's best interest that Mitch get out on the field sooner rather than later.

It was in the Bears best interest because they couldn't march Glennon back out there, and still maintain any sense of dignity.

What you're saying here is that prudently developing him for the future wasn't a consideration. Placating the fans was the highest priority, even if you ruin your investment in the #2 pick in the draft by throwing him out too soon. If that's the case, everyone from Ryan Pace on down should be fired.

[wab]

Everything Trubisky/Glennon is seriously black and white to you huh?

[southdakbearfan]

The only thing Trubisky showed me Monday Night which lead me to believe he wasn't ready (and really it was a 0.1 out of 10) was the INT that ostensibly cost us the game.

So you didn't see the scaled back playbook?

The major difference was the lack of 17 clusterfuck plays glennon couldn't or wouldn't execute. If you are talking about that then yes I noticed.

I also noticed a QB that can move, is accurate, made more than one read and got rid of the ball.

[Boris13c]

What you're saying here is that prudently developing him for the future wasn't a consideration. Placating the fans was the highest priority, even if you ruin your investment in the #2 pick in the draft by throwing him out too soon. If that's the case, everyone from Ryan Pace on down should be fired.

dude, I don't think anyone at any time even suggested what the fans want played any role in Trubisky playing

Glennon was signed, sealed, delivered and given the starting job ... he showed by his own effort he was not up to the task

Trubisky was named the #2 QB ... and I say that had everything to do with the fact he earned the spot

so when you bench #1 for being terrible, the next logical step is to promote #2

and where are you getting this thing about the Bears ruining him? IMO he played well enough that if the QB position had been an open competition, he would have won it and started opening day ... so he should be punished and banished to the bench because of some theory that he has to be in order to learn rather than be rewarded for his efforts?

he is starting because he is the best QB on the team and I fully believe the experience will be much more valuable in his development than sitting on the bench watching how not to do it

[malk]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

So 9 QBs in the past 20 years that didn't start a game. Sure you've got Rodgers, Rivers, Palmer but you've also got Losman, Locker, Quinn and Campbell. The last two are Culpepper and Pennington who might not have been terrible but I think we're all going to be disappointed if that's how True Biscuits ends up.

So sure, posit an opinion about how sitting could have been good for him but I stopped thinking about the truth conditions of non actualised possible worlds after I graduated.

[Rusty Trombagent]

So 9 QBs in the past 20 years that didn't start a game. Sure you've got Rodgers, Rivers, Palmer but you've also got Losman, Locker, Quinn and Campbell. The last two are Culpepper and Pennington who might not have been terrible but I think we're all going to be disappointed if that's how True Biscuits ends up.

the funny thing is, the counter argument to this is "but losman, locker quinn and campbell would have failed no matter the scenario", but the opposite, that rodgers, rivers and palmer would have succeeded starting from day one doesnt come into play.

[malk]

So 9 QBs in the past 20 years that didn't start a game. Sure you've got Rodgers, Rivers, Palmer but you've also got Losman, Locker, Quinn and Campbell. The last two are Culpepper and Pennington who might not have been terrible but I think we're all going to be disappointed if that's how True Biscuits ends up.

the funny thing is, the counter argument to this is "but losman, locker quinn and campbell would have failed no matter the scenario", but the opposite, that rodgers, rivers and palmer would have succeeded starting from day one doesnt come into play.

Who knows? Maybe if Brady Quinn starts from game 1 of his rookie year he has his 2009 season in 2007, works out some kinks whilst getting a rookie pass and progresses from there.

Data without an argument doesn't do a massive amount for me. I'm positing that (pretty much), as long as you've got a line that doesn't get you killed, experience is good for a rookie QB. I find that more compelling than the idea that, in this NFL era with virtually no practice snaps going to anyone but the starter, rookies get better watching.

Now I've said before that I wasn't massively concerned with Trubisky starting game 1 this year but I did want him to get significant experience. What I'm arguing against here is that there's sufficient reason to be dispirited at him starting now as opposed to the back end of the season or not at all this year. I just don't see any merit in that argument.

[Moriarty]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

"Counterfactual" would mean the evidence indicates the opposite.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

"Counterfactual" would mean the evidence indicates the opposite.

"counterfactual" means the same as "bullshit"

I looked it up.

[mmmc_35]

Hopefully the play book is opened up a bit for this week's game. Biscuit will get murdered if they have a similar game plan.

[46Blitz]

Hopefully the play book is opened up a bit for this week's game. Biscuit will get murdered if they have a similar game plan.

Actually, I think more along the lines of dumb it down would be better.

They need to get away from cute ass plays and stick to the basics. Run the freaking ball, standard passing plays. I do t want to see trick plays just good ole jam it down their throats football.

[wab]

I'm just hoping that the Bears will focus on what Mitch does well and not get too cute. Run the ball, move the pocket, throw a lot of slants and outs, take some deep shots. And for the love of god, give Leno some help.

[FaithInCutler]

Hopefully the play book is opened up a bit for this week's game. Biscuit will get murdered if they have a similar game plan.

Actually, I think more along the lines of dumb it down would be better.

They need to get away from cute ass plays and stick to the basics. Run the freaking ball, standard passing plays. I do t want to see trick plays just good ole jam it down their throats football.

What “cute plays” are you referring to? A boot leg is not cute. It’s Trubiskys strength.. If by basics, you mean standing in the pocket chucking the ball down field, you’re going to be disappointed.

[FaithInCutler]

I'm just hoping that the Bears will focus on what Mitch does well and not get too cute. Run the ball, move the pocket, throw a lot of slants and outs, take some deep shots. And for the love of god, give Leno some help.

This is why I’m interested to see if Shaheen can block. If he can be a dual threat at some point he‘s going to help this team in so many different ways. I’m not expecting much this year though.

[wab]

Hopefully the play book is opened up a bit for this week's game. Biscuit will get murdered if they have a similar game plan.

Actually, I think more along the lines of dumb it down would be better.

They need to get away from cute ass plays and stick to the basics. Run the freaking ball, standard passing plays. I do t want to see trick plays just good ole jam it down their throats football.

What “cute plays” are you referring to? A boot leg is not cute. It’s Trubiskys strength.. If by basics, you mean standing in the pocket chucking the ball down field, you’re going to be disappointed.

I think he means the fake punt and stuff to generate points. But that 2pt conversion was uhmazing.

[BR0D1E86]

Hopefully the play book is opened up a bit for this week's game. Biscuit will get murdered if they have a similar game plan.

Actually, I think more along the lines of dumb it down would be better.

They need to get away from cute ass plays and stick to the basics. Run the freaking ball, standard passing plays. I do t want to see trick plays just good ole jam it down their throats football.

What “cute plays” are you referring to? A boot leg is not cute. It’s Trubiskys strength.. If by basics, you mean standing in the pocket chucking the ball down field, you’re going to be disappointed.

I thought that the cute plays were mostly the stuff with Cohen. Trubisky they were just rolling out to simplify the reads and play to his strength of throwing on the run.

I think to play to this the best, we should try a lot of outside zone runs, probably to Massie's side rather ban Leno's, and play action bootlegs off of it. It's a good tight end play as well. Plays to our strengths.

[malk]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

"Counterfactual" would mean the evidence indicates the opposite.

Would it.

counterfactual (ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl) logic
adj
(Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
n
(Logic) a conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in: if she had hurried she would have caught the bus.

I mean Christ, double click, right click, search and it is right there.

If Trubisky had sat longer then he would be better. You tell me how evidence can ever support that argument?

[G08]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

"Counterfactual" would mean the evidence indicates the opposite.

Would it.

counterfactual (ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl) logic
adj
(Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
n
(Logic) a conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in: if she had hurried she would have caught the bus.

I mean Christ, double click, right click, search and it is right there.

If Trubisky had sat longer then he would be better. You tell me how evidence can ever support that argument?

Damnit, site won't let me +1 you because I gave you one already

Moriarty... don't mess with an Englishman when it comes to his vernacular.

[Rusty Trombagent]

Damn malk you decimated him

[Mikefive]

What you're saying here is that prudently developing him for the future wasn't a consideration. Placating the fans was the highest priority, even if you ruin your investment in the #2 pick in the draft by throwing him out too soon. If that's the case, everyone from Ryan Pace on down should be fired.

dude, I don't think anyone at any time even suggested what the fans want played any role in Trubisky playing

Glennon was signed, sealed, delivered and given the starting job ... he showed by his own effort he was not up to the task

Trubisky was named the #2 QB ... and I say that had everything to do with the fact he earned the spot

so when you bench #1 for being terrible, the next logical step is to promote #2

and where are you getting this thing about the Bears ruining him? IMO he played well enough that if the QB position had been an open competition, he would have won it and started opening day ... so he should be punished and banished to the bench because of some theory that he has to be in order to learn rather than be rewarded for his efforts?

he is starting because he is the best QB on the team and I fully believe the experience will be much more valuable in his development than sitting on the bench watching how not to do it

You're right and my comment was wrong. Upon further review, I originally misinterpreted the post I responded to. So my bad on that one.

On your further comment, QBs get ruined by playing them too soon. Unless you believe David Carr and Tim Couch were drafted #1, but were just stiffs. That's my POV. You're certainly entitled to disagree.

I started to write a verbose reply to this. But I'm tired of talking about it. I just really REALLY want the Bears to do the absolute best to ensure that Mitchell Trubisky--who looks like an NFL QB to me--develops into that quality NFL QB we all hope for. I'm absolutely sick of being that "if they only had a QB" team.

That is all.

[Mikefive]

If Trubisky had sat longer then he would be better. You tell me how evidence can ever support that argument?

See his college career.

[BR0D1E86]

If Trubisky had sat longer then he would be better. You tell me how evidence can ever support that argument?

See his college career.

The problem is, we don't have a control in this experiment. He may very well have been even better if he'd played earlier. He was pretty good in his brief relief appearances before the year he was the starter.

[malk]

The really frustrating thing about the sitting Trubisky argument is it based on a counterfactual. There's no evidence to suggest that sitting a QB is beneficial over starting them. See here.

"Counterfactual" would mean the evidence indicates the opposite.

Would it.

counterfactual (ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl) logic
adj
(Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
n
(Logic) a conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in: if she had hurried she would have caught the bus.

I mean Christ, double click, right click, search and it is right there.

If Trubisky had sat longer then he would be better. You tell me how evidence can ever support that argument?

Damnit, site won't let me +1 you because I gave you one already

Moriarty... don't mess with an Englishman when it comes to his vernacular.

British (and Irish), not English!

[o-pus #40 in B major]

I gave you guys the definition.