Tony Dungy doesn’t understand what John Fox is doing QBs

[docc]

Hall of Fame coach Tony Dungy can’t figure out why Bears coach John Fox is starting Mike Glennon over Mitchell Trubisky.

Dungy said on PFT Live that he has had his eye on Trubisky since the summer, thinks Trubisky looks ready to play, and can’t figure out why the Bears have gone with Glennon instead.

“What I saw in training camp, and what I saw in the preseason games, I don’t understand why Trubisky is not playing now,” Dungy said.

Dungy said that when you’re a last-place team that traded up in the draft to take a quarterback, you should want to see what that quarterback can do.

“You won three games last year,” Dungy said. “You mortgaged the future to take this guy. Put him in and let him get the experience. Now, if he struggles and you’ve got to go to Mike Glennon to bail him out, that’s fine. But he didn’t look like he was struggling, to me, in training camp.”

In Indianapolis Dungy inherited a Hall of Fame quarterback in Peyton Manning, but in Dungy’s previous head coaching job, in Tampa Bay, he inherited a struggling young quarterback who had been a Top 10 pick — and Dungy said the whole Buccaneers franchise understood that the only way to figure out what it had in that quarterback was to give him experience.

“When you draft Mitchell Trubisky, you have to make an organizational decision,” Dungy said. “When I came to Tampa in 1996 they had drafted Trent Dilfer with the sixth pick in the draft. We sat down, Rich McKay and I and the ownership, and we said, ‘We’re going to play Trent Dilfer for two years. I don’t care if we don’t win a game, I don’t care if we go to the Super Bowl. He’s going to play, because we have to find out if he justifies this sixth pick. Is he our guy?’ And we were all on board with that. And that’s what it’s got to be. This organization made a decision, somehow, not to start Mitchell Trubisky no matter what happens in training camp or the preseason, Glennon was going to start. I think the organization has to change.”

Fox sounded open to making a change after Thursday’s game. That change appears overdue.
----
Get the Ostrich OFF OUR FIELD NOW !!!

[bearsfaninaz]

Holy crap I actually agree with Dungy. I must be losing my sanity.

[Wounded Bear]

I'm sorry, but if I was the coach responsible for making the decision when Trubisky plays, I would like to work out some of the wrinkles in offensive line play, etc. before I throw the future of the franchise out on the field. I don't think that Fox is exactly way out of line here. I just don't think anyone predicted that Glennon would be this horrible.

We want Trubisky to play because our pride as sports fans have been damaged...big deal. That last game was humiliating and pathetic, but with that said, I wouldn't panic and sacrifice the future of the franchise because some fans are upset. They're Bear fans, they're used to being upset.

So if Fox has any balls at all, he'll do the right thing and, depth chart be damned, name Sanchez the starter until he feels that the Trubs is truly ready.

[Atkins&Rebel]

We can go back and look at the discussion even on this board, and most vehemently were against Trubisky starting game 1 because he wasn't ready, or there was fear that he would be hurt in his development. That was the sentiment that that was prevalent over much of the online discussion that I can recall with anyone suggesting Trubisky starting doing so coyly. I remember stating that I would start Trubisky back in the pre season...but I also supported Glennon after week 1.

-Glennon lost any support anyone can muster because he's clearly not progressing in any fashion.
-Its time to start Trubisky because Glennon failed so badly.
-But lets not pretend that starting Trubisky was the commonly held belief and looking back with 20/20 goggles is pointless right now.

[PC Load Letter]

I'm sorry, but if I was the coach responsible for making the decision when Trubisky plays, I would like to work out some of the wrinkles in offensive line play, etc. before I throw the future of the franchise out on the field. I don't think that Fox is exactly way out of line here. I just don't think anyone predicted that Glennon would be this horrible.

If Loggains wants to run an offense that resembles Kyle Shannahan's, I think the wrinkles are already part of his playbook. The problem is those wrinkles are bootlegs and play action roll-outs, etc. that require a QB that isn't a statue and can actually throw the ball on the run. Fox should've had an idea of what Glennon would be. Reports out of camp had him struggling in practices and then we all saw him in the pre-season. A good staff would see this train wreck coming from a mile away and be somewhat prepared for this moment.

We want Trubisky to play because our pride as sports fans have been damaged...big deal. That last game was humiliating and pathetic, but with that said, I wouldn't panic and sacrifice the future of the franchise because some fans are upset. They're Bear fans, they're used to being upset.

I think it's deeper than just that and part of it is also wanting to see our best players play. I don't think every time a rookie QB plays it means they are being sacrificed. Do you think it was bad for Wentz to play last year? I really don't think our situation is any worse than that. We're not going to David Carr him or anything. We have a good line, good running game and decent D.

So if Fox has any balls at all, he'll do the right thing and, depth chart be damned, name Sanchez the starter until he feels that the Trubs is truly ready.

Problem is, I don't even know if I trust Fox to have a good idea on when a rookie QB is ready.

I think another thing that we need to factor in here as well is the locker room. I'd imagine our staff at least has a good idea of the pulse of it and if they are ready to rally around the rookie or how they'd react to giving Sanchez the nod.

I mean Fox has kinda painted himself into a corner by making Mitch the #2 already. It'd look bad if he goes to Sanchez instead. What happens if Sanchez is just as bad as Glennon? Do you flip flop between them?

Play the rookie, keep the playbook simple, and sprinkle in some stuff to move the pocket, etc. I honestly don't see it any other way and don't think it's going to ruin him.

[Richie]

So if Fox has any balls at all, he'll do the right thing and, depth chart be damned, name Sanchez the starter until he feels that the Trubs is truly ready.

What if he actually does feel Trubisky IS ready? Isn't that the right thing?

[staleystarch]

I just don't think anyone predicted that Glennon would be this horrible.

Seeing how I never liked the Glennon signing from the get go, you lost me right there. He got benched for Josh McCown for Christ sake.

[Moriarty]

Dungy said. “You mortgaged the future to take this guy. Put him in and let him get the experience. Now, if he struggles and you’ve got to go to Mike Glennon to bail him out, that’s fine. ”

If you'd have shown me this quote with no name attached, I'd have bet heavily the person saying it had no association with football above the Pee-Wee level.

[RING4CHI]

“You won three games last year,” Dungy said. “You mortgaged the future to take this guy. Put him in and let him get the experience. Now, if he struggles and you’ve got to go to Mike Glennon to bail him out, that’s fine. But he didn’t look like he was struggling, to me, in training camp.”

Trubisky should've been starting since week one.

[beardownbilly]

“You won three games last year,” Dungy said. “You mortgaged the future to take this guy.

That part is BS, we did not mortgage our future, the narrative that we gave up this huge amount to get Mitch is so exhausting. Every single scout, GM, coach, and so called draft expert will say leading up to the draft that if you see a guy you think is a franchise player you have to go and get him. Then, the Bears did exactly that, without giving up a significant amount and get killed for it in every Trubisky article or have statements like this that 'we mortgaged our future'. Sorry, rant over, I'm just tired hearing this same stuff.

I can understand why the franchise started Glennon the first 4 games, as frustrating as it's been though (and what is written below doesn't make it right but it can be understood).
We signed this guy as our supposed starter for $18m (or whatever the exact figure is), we couldn’t be seen as a franchise to sign a FA as our supposed starter and then just a couple of weeks later draft a guy to take his place and without even giving him a chance relegate him to backup. Think of how that would have affected any possible future free agents thinking about coming to Chicago under our current regime. The bottom line is, we gave him a chance, the players bought into the ‘ Glennon is our starter' narrative and he promptly went out there and shit the bed. He's had his chance, now if the franchise refuses to go to Mitch they lose the locker room, the fans and the media in one fell swoop.
However, we all know this franchise and that may be the most 'Chicago Bears' move we’ve seen yet.

[46Blitz]

“You won three games last year,” Dungy said. “You mortgaged the future to take this guy.

That part is BS, we did not mortgage our future, the narrative that we gave up this huge amount to get Mitch is so exhausting. Every single scout, GM, coach, and so called draft expert will say leading up to the draft that if you see a guy you think is a franchise player you have to go and get him. Then, the Bears did exactly that, without giving up a significant amount and get killed for it in every Trubisky article or have statements like this that 'we mortgaged our future'. Sorry, rant over, I'm just tired hearing this same stuff.

I can understand why the franchise started Glennon the first 4 games, as frustrating as it's been though (and what is written below doesn't make it right but it can be understood).
We signed this guy as our supposed starter for $18m (or whatever the exact figure is), we couldn’t be seen as a franchise to sign a FA as our supposed starter and then just a couple of weeks later draft a guy to take his place and without even giving him a chance relegate him to backup. Think of how that would have affected any possible future free agents thinking about coming to Chicago under our current regime. The bottom line is, we gave him a chance, the players bought into the ‘ Glennon is our starter' narrative and he promptly went out there and shit the bed. He's had his chance, now if the franchise refuses to go to Mitch they lose the locker room, the fans and the media in one fell swoop.
However, we all know this franchise and that may be the most 'Chicago Bears' move we’ve seen yet.

Pretty much agree with you.

The whole thing about them giving "up a lot" to get Trubisky is kinda annoying to me. Being that only a third of draft picks only turn out to be a very effective player anyway (that's not a stat, just saying). Mortgage the future? No. Period. They "bought" their future at a low cost from my view. what if the Bears were just a tad better last year? What if the moved up from #6-7 and traded those picks for him? What's the freaking difference? They still got who they wanted. At the time, I thought what the hell are they doing? They could have had him by sitting there and doing nothing! However, at the end of the day they got who I wanted the whole time (it's the only guy I wanted as a fan personally so I may be bias). Fact is, it's not like Washington and others that traded several first and other shit to get #1 pick. Plus they ended up getting a little draft capital back later in draft. Not to go too much deeper into this, but Cohen and Sheehan are looking like solid picks. If they turn out, that's 3 good potential starters. That's not mortgaging a future, that's building one. If these guys work out Pace will be considered a genius. Funny how perception goes. He got who he wanted and didn't put it to chance, I respect him for that.

As far as Glennon. I completely agree to a degree. They may have done the "right thing" by going by their plan. I have to respect that somewhat. There was no telling that Glennon would be this bad. I wanted Trubisky to sit the bench for most of the season personally. Up until I saw the developments that took place between both players. Shit, I still wish Trubisky had the luxury to sit a bit more. But at this point the choice is just to obvious. I would have liked to see them have a plan to put him in at halftime last game, but that's a moot thought now. They had a plan, stuck to it. Now they look to be going to the second part of the plan. Over the long term, I think they made the right choice. Even though Glennon ended up being a flop.

[botfly10]

Dungy has a pretty long history of chiming in about the Bears while clearly not knowing what the fuck he is talking about. Remember during the Lovie years?

[Boris13c]

As far as Glennon. I completely agree to a degree. They may have done the "right thing" by going by their plan. I have to respect that somewhat. There was no telling that Glennon would be this bad. I wanted Trubisky to sit the bench for most of the season personally. Up until I saw the developments that took place between both players. Shit, I still wish Trubisky had the luxury to sit a bit more. But at this point the choice is just to obvious. I would have liked to see them have a plan to put him in at halftime last game, but that's a moot thought now. They had a plan, stuck to it. Now they look to be going to the second part of the plan. Over the long term, I think they made the right choice. Even though Glennon ended up being a flop.

the more I think about the Glennon signing, the more pissed off I get ... and it isn't just because Glennon has ended up worse than could possibly be imagined

it is because he has zero similarities to Trubisky

if Pace had his Trubisky boner, and absolutely knew he was going to do anything to get him, then why not sign a bridge QB that could at least run a similar offense? Trubisky's college game was successful because of his ability to move in the pocket while still looking to throw, and doing well throwing on the run ... Glennon's college and pro game has been to stand like a statue and if he has to move, to get sacked

if the Bears had signed an average, but mobile, veteran then at least the offense itself would be in place for a smoother transition when it became Trubisky time

and let me take this moment to beat a dead horse - they should have re-signed Hoyer ... a Hoyer to Trubisky transition would have been seamless ... and that transition probably wouldn't have been required this soon

[Wounded Bear]

I'm sorry, but if I was the coach responsible for making the decision when Trubisky plays, I would like to work out some of the wrinkles in offensive line play, etc. before I throw the future of the franchise out on the field. I don't think that Fox is exactly way out of line here. I just don't think anyone predicted that Glennon would be this horrible.

If Loggains wants to run an offense that resembles Kyle Shannahan's, I think the wrinkles are already part of his playbook. The problem is those wrinkles are bootlegs and play action roll-outs, etc. that require a QB that isn't a statue and can actually throw the ball on the run. Fox should've had an idea of what Glennon would be. Reports out of camp had him struggling in practices and then we all saw him in the pre-season. A good staff would see this train wreck coming from a mile away and be somewhat prepared for this moment.

I don't know what your saying here. Maybe I haven't been clear with my definition of "wrinkle", so when I say wrinkles, I'm talking about problems with offensive line, problems with receivers, etc. So although the offensive scheme may better fit Trubisky, I think Fox is prudent in working some of those problems out before throwing our brand spankin' new QB out on the field, especially when you take into account that he only started one year in college.

You can practice all you want and even with preseason games, but you typically don't know exactly what you have until regular season begins. And even then, it takes a few games for the offense and defense to find their true identities. So Fox (and I'm not a big fan of Fox at all), but when Fox takes a couple of games to see what he has, I think that is very wise before he introduces Trubisky.

So I don't think Glennon's play is part of the equation. Fox is evaluating Trubisky progression and he's evaluating how well the rest of the team is playing in order to gauge the optimal time to play his shiny new chess piece. I don't have a problem with that at all. And the reason I say that is due to outcomes of other QB's thrown to the wolves such as David Carr and yes, even what Jerry Angelo did to Jay Cutler. You can ruin the development of young QB's and I think those two guys are examples of quality QB's who never recovered from the horrors they experience early on in their respective careers.

We want Trubisky to play because our pride as sports fans have been damaged...big deal. That last game was humiliating and pathetic, but with that said, I wouldn't panic and sacrifice the future of the franchise because some fans are upset. They're Bear fans, they're used to being upset.

I think it's deeper than just that and part of it is also wanting to see our best players play. I don't think every time a rookie QB plays it means they are being sacrificed. Do you think it was bad for Wentz to play last year? I really don't think our situation is any worse than that. We're not going to David Carr him or anything. We have a good line, good running game and decent D.

So this is where our disagreement truly lies. The beginning of the season is usually fairly turbulent and sloppy. So I think that it is why it is a very good reason to wait a little bit for the team to find its groove before you introduce the future of your franchise who has very little starting experience even at the college level.

When it comes to Carson Wentz, I think 2016 Philly team had a much better supporting cast than the 2017 Chicago Bear supporting cast. There is a lot of change and movement on our offensive line when it comes to our Guards and Center, and our wideouts aren't exactly top notch. So if I was John Fox, I would wait until Kyle Long was back into the mix and I would probably wait until I was satisfied that he was up to speed. I would want Sitton back at LG and Whitehair is at Center, then I would feel a shit load more comfortable putting in my baby-faced QB who is expected to complete passes to wideouts who are more practice squad quality players than anything else.

So if Fox has any balls at all, he'll do the right thing and, depth chart be damned, name Sanchez the starter until he feels that the Trubs is truly ready.

Problem is, I don't even know if I trust Fox to have a good idea on when a rookie QB is ready.

I think that's a legitimate concern. But I would think that it's not only John Fox making that evaluation or decision. I would assume that this decision is being made by committee of coaches, meaning perhaps the O.C., Dowell Loggains, and maybe QB Coach, Dave Rangone, are throwing in their two cents as well.

Even though the Bears suck, these guys have been around football for many decades and I would think that they have something to offer when it comes to evaluating when a QB is ready. Are they the best at it? Probably not, but after coaching for that many years, I still think that they have something valuable to offer in that assessment.

I think another thing that we need to factor in here as well is the locker room. I'd imagine our staff at least has a good idea of the pulse of it and if they are ready to rally around the rookie or how they'd react to giving Sanchez the nod.

I'm not a fan of the tail wagging the dog. Coaches coach, players play, and fans....well, fans are idiots. So if I'm John Fox I don't let the players or the fans tell me when to make a very important decision.

I mean Fox has kinda painted himself into a corner by making Mitch the #2 already. It'd look bad if he goes to Sanchez instead. What happens if Sanchez is just as bad as Glennon? Do you flip flop between them?

If he feels Trubs is not ready yet, then YES. Absolutely yes. Yes, he painted himself into a corner, but he is the head coach and he's coaching like he doesn't have a job next year (and there are several sources saying that he doesn't), so he's got nothing to lose to flip-flop between the two (which I don't think he would/I think Sanchez is a better QB than Glennon). Fox is responsible for introducing Trubisky at the right time and that, to me, is a very important decision.

[Play the rookie, keep the playbook simple, and sprinkle in some stuff to move the pocket, etc. I honestly don't see it any other way and don't think it's going to ruin him.

And when he's ready, I think that's a great idea. And if Trubisky is ready right now, then play him.

[edep12]

I say we start Deshaun Watson.

[PC Load Letter]

I don't know what your saying here. Maybe I haven't been clear with my definition of "wrinkle", so when I say wrinkles, I'm talking about problems with offensive line, problems with receivers, etc. So although the offensive scheme may better fit Trubisky, I think Fox is prudent in working some of those problems out before throwing our brand spankin' new QB out on the field, especially when you take into account that he only started one year in college.

You can practice all you want and even with preseason games, but you typically don't know exactly what you have until regular season begins. And even then, it takes a few games for the offense and defense to find their true identities. So Fox (and I'm not a big fan of Fox at all), but when Fox takes a couple of games to see what he has, I think that is very wise before he introduces Trubisky.

Yeah I was referring to wrinkles of the playbook. As far as o-line and WR problems, I don't know what can be done to change that. Honestly - a QB that can extend plays is only going to help them. I don't think our O-line has been a problem. We've been shuffling guys around, but it's been more than adequate. A lot of the sacks given up by them I would pin directly on Glennon.

I was totally fine with starting the season with Glennon as well. I was just saying hopefully they have been preparing for this (partly due to Glennon being bad in camp and preseason) and didn't actually think we'd ride Glennon the entire year.

So I don't think Glennon's play is part of the equation. Fox is evaluating Trubisky progression and he's evaluating how well the rest of the team is playing in order to gauge the optimal time to play his shiny new chess piece. I don't have a problem with that at all. And the reason I say that is due to outcomes of other QB's thrown to the wolves such as David Carr and yes, even what Jerry Angelo did to Jay Cutler. You can ruin the development of young QB's and I think those two guys are examples of quality QB's who never recovered from the horrors they experience early on in their respective careers.

Glennon's play is part of the equation, though. You don't think there will be locker room divide if Glennon is still out there shitting himself for another month?

So this is where our disagreement truly lies. The beginning of the season is usually fairly turbulent and sloppy. So I think that it is why it is a very good reason to wait a little bit for the team to find its groove before you introduce the future of your franchise who has very little starting experience even at the college level.

When it comes to Carson Wentz, I think 2016 Philly team had a much better supporting cast than the 2017 Chicago Bear supporting cast. There is a lot of change and movement on our offensive line when it comes to our Guards and Center, and our wideouts aren't exactly top notch. So if I was John Fox, I would wait until Kyle Long was back into the mix and I would probably wait until I was satisfied that he was up to speed. I would want Sitton back at LG and Whitehair is at Center, then I would feel a shit load more comfortable putting in my baby-faced QB who is expected to complete passes to wideouts who are more practice squad quality players than anything else.

Yeah I was fine with waiting a few weeks. I was never adamant about playing Mitch week 1. I was always in the camp of playing him when Glennon was a liability to the rest of the team and I think we've reached that point.

I think it's a little unrealistic to wait until we're 100% healthy and guys are settled in for few weeks on the line. Even with recent shuffles they've been pretty damn good and that's protecting a QB that makes them look worse. I don't think Philly was all that better than us. They had better WRs, we have better RBs.

I'm not a fan of the dog wagging the tail. Coaches coach, players play, and fans....well, fans are idiots. So if I'm John Fox I don't let the players or the fans tell me when to make a very important decision.

I don't care about the fans either, but losing the locker room is and should be a real concern. It's clearly happened in situations in the past and ours has the potential of going south in a hurry (if it isn't already).

If he feels Trubs is not ready yet, then YES. Absolutely yes. Yes, he painted himself into a corner, but he is the head coach and he's coaching like he doesn't have a job next year (and there are several sources saying that he doesn't), so he's got nothing to lose to flip-flop between the two (which I don't think he would/I think Sanchez is a better QB than Glennon). Fox is responsible for introducing Trubisky at the right time and that, to me, is a very important decision.

I disagree that Fox is coaching like he doesn't have a job. Riding Glennon this far (or even refusing to insert Mitch into the GB game) is the conservative approach. Fox could've shocked us all and named Mitch the starter week 1. That'd be the choice of a coach that has nothing to lose. I agree Fox is on the hotseat but who knows if Fox realizes that.

And when he's ready, I think that's a great idea. And if Trubisky is ready right now, then play him.

So if Fox puts him in then you'll assume he's ready?

[G08]

[botfly10]

Wait... does this mean you think online message board interactions are boxing matches?

Oh shit, are you one of those guys that keeps score online and tries to win the interwebs? lol, oh shit, its all falling into place.

[UOK]

Stop being dicks.

[G08]

Stop being dicks.

?

I'm confused

[UOK]

I didn't like where things were headed.

[G08]

I read Moon Mullin's argument (as well as some quotes from Jim Miller) that Trubisky simply isn't ready... I really don't understand it.

Our gameplans don't seem overly sophisticated... run the ball, sprinkle in play action, and get the ball out quick. Is Mitch really that bad at identifying coverages? Are defense going to throw the kitchen sink at him and the Bears are terrified he'll crumble? Defenses don't respect our passing game at all, and as a result our run game is going to suffer (I expect everyone to follow Green Bay's game plan against us). Having a QB that offers SOME threat of the passing game will only help our run game.

Watson didn't implement many full-field reads in Clemson, but he did play in high-leverage games.... does that make him more ready than Trubisky? I still remember how Stanford pants him a couple times in his final bowl game, but he still fought and drove them down the field to score a TD and have a shot at going for 2 to tie the game.

I just don't get it, unless there is something that I'm completely missing. The kid is QB2 for a reason, he's literally one play from getting thrown into the fire... but he's not ready to start?

[Wounded Bear]

IYeah I was referring to wrinkles of the playbook. As far as o-line and WR problems, I don't know what can be done to change that. Honestly - a QB that can extend plays is only going to help them. I don't think our O-line has been a problem. We've been shuffling guys around, but it's been more than adequate. A lot of the sacks given up by them I would pin directly on Glennon.

Yeah, the oline hasn't been that bad, but I don't think you can get a real bead on the production of a group until you get a decent game sample size and I think teams start to get into a groove and get some consistency in play around game 5. Does Fox think the same as me? Is he waiting for the early season sloppy play to subside? I don't know, but that's what I would be doing if I was tasked with introducing my new QB with one year of starting as the NCAA level, so I just assumed Fox was in that mindset as well. It is an assumption, however.

I also think Fox was waiting for Kyle Long to come back since he was scheduled to come back sooner than later and that is something that would make the timing of Trubisky's introduction to the league more ideal as well. These are things that would make Trubisky's introduction less turbulent in my estimation.

Once again, I'm not at all crazy about Fox, but I do think that waiting until these things are worked out is prudent. I realize it's never going to be perfect, but there's no crime in making it the best you can before throwing him in there. It's not like we're screwing ourselves out of playoff contention. Even if we were, we're not exactly Super Bowl bound, so why not err to the side of caution?

I was totally fine with starting the season with Glennon as well. I was just saying hopefully they have been preparing for this (partly due to Glennon being bad in camp and preseason) and didn't actually think we'd ride Glennon the entire year.

And I thought we would ride Glennon and/or Sanchez for as long as it took Trubisky to get ready to play.

So I don't think Glennon's play is part of the equation. Fox is evaluating Trubisky progression and he's evaluating how well the rest of the team is playing in order to gauge the optimal time to play his shiny new chess piece. I don't have a problem with that at all. And the reason I say that is due to outcomes of other QB's thrown to the wolves such as David Carr and yes, even what Jerry Angelo did to Jay Cutler. You can ruin the development of young QB's and I think those two guys are examples of quality QB's who never recovered from the horrors they experience early on in their respective careers.

Glennon's play is part of the equation, though. You don't think there will be locker room divide if Glennon is still out there shitting himself for another month?

I'm saying as far as Fox is concerned, he's not too concerned about Glennon (and therefore, not part of his equation). There's nothing he can do about him. Glennon is who he is. No coaching is going to change that.

Fox, however, is concerned with Trubisky's progression and he is concerned with all of the variables that will affect the introduction of Trubisky. So, if he has to wait a couple of games to get Kyle Long back, then he'll wait. If it takes a couple of games for the oline to gel, then he'll wait. Again, it's never going to be perfect, but you control what you can control. Receivers, that's another variable beyond his control, but I don't think the receiver situation is as bad as we think. It's certainly not good, but it's not as bad as we think.

I'm not a fan of the tail wagging the dog. Coaches coach, players play, and fans....well, fans are idiots. So if I'm John Fox I don't let the players or the fans tell me when to make a very important decision.

I don't care about the fans either, but losing the locker room is and should be a real concern. It's clearly happened in situations in the past and ours has the potential of going south in a hurry (if it isn't already).

Good then put in Sanchez. But under zero circumstances would I sacrifice my new QB if I didn't feel that he was ready yet....locker room be damned.

And when he's ready, I think that's a great idea. And if Trubisky is ready right now, then play him.

So if Fox puts him in then you'll assume he's ready?

If he puts Trubisky in, I am hoping that he is putting him in because he is ready. That should be his only barometer - the fans, sports radio, the locker room should have zero influence on that decision.

**I deleted parts of our conversation where we disagree. That's just my way of "agreeing to disagree," but if you want to go back and re-introduce the statements, be my guest.

**EDIT** And it appears that this conversation is moot since Trubs has been named the starter.