BearsFansOnline.com

I've read and heard an awful lot about Mitch versus Jimmy G before, during and in the aftermath of this game and wanted to put some perspective into things.

It's fair to compare the two based on the fact they are both new to starting at the position and the Bears may (or more likely, may not) have had the chance to select either one prior to their selection last year. Beyond this point, a lot of what I have read isn't being looked at from a fair vantage point.

Garoppolo may have looked the more settled and assured quarterback but all this talk of it's just his 3rd start and Mitch's 8th start is almost irrelevant.

Garoppolo is 26, in his 4th year in the league (yes, he hasn't started) but he was a 4 year college player (2 year starter), he has run the Patriots scout team for 3 and a bit years, sat in the Patriots meeting rooms scouting every team in the league, dissecting plays and defences with Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Josh McDaniels. He has saw pretty much everything a defence will throw at you by watching Brady so understands what he's looking at when at the line of scrimmage considerably faster and better than Mitch.

Mitch is 23, a 3 year college player (1 year starter), ran a scout team for 4 weeks and sits in the Bears meeting room with Fox and Loggains.

The comparisons of where they are right now is not fair, lets compare them in 12,24 and even 36 months time when Mitch has had a chance to be coached by a staff that is QB friendly, understands how to get WR's open and tries to win games rather than keep them close.

Right now, I would still rather have Mitch and his upside over the older (and about to be much more expensive) Garappolo. If coached correctly and surrounded with some weapons I really believe he will be just as good if not better than Garappolo.

None of this means I will be right, none of this means the Bears won't continue to ruin his development and coach everything good out of the poor kid. But it's been 8 games, what did people expect, that after half a dozen games he would be 1995 Brett Favre? He will get better, but this year it's just all about learning, next year might be average, I for one won't be writing him off until I at least see him in his 3rd year.

docc wrote:Fox has now excrementaly passed Abe Gibron as worst Bear HC record EVER..

Good call! He came to mind when I heard a media guy say Fox has the worst Bears coaching record. I'm thinking... Worse than Abe Gibron? Really?

beardownbilly wrote:I've read and heard an awful lot about Mitch versus Jimmy G before, during and in the aftermath of this game and wanted to put some perspective into things.

It's fair to compare the two based on the fact they are both new to starting at the position and the Bears may (or more likely, may not) have had the chance to select either one prior to their selection last year. Beyond this point, a lot of what I have read isn't being looked at from a fair vantage point.

Garoppolo may have looked the more settled and assured quarterback but all this talk of it's just his 3rd start and Mitch's 8th start is almost irrelevant.

Garoppolo is 26, in his 4th year in the league (yes, he hasn't started) but he was a 4 year college player (2 year starter), he has run the Patriots scout team for 3 and a bit years, sat in the Patriots meeting rooms scouting every team in the league, dissecting plays and defences with Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Josh McDaniels. He has saw pretty much everything a defence will throw at you by watch Brady so understands what he's looking at when at the line of scrimmage considerably faster and better than Mitch.

Mitch is 23, a 3 year college player (1 year starter), ran a scout team for 4 weeks and sits in the Bears meeting room with Fox and Loggains.

The comparisons of where they are right now is not fair, lets compare them in 12,24 and even 36 months time when Mitch has had a chance to be coached by a staff that is QB friendly, understands how to get WR's open and tries to win games rather than keep them close.

Right now, I would still rather have Mitch and his upside over the older (and about to be much more expensive) Garappolo. If coached correctly and surrounded with some weapons I really believe he will be just as good if not better than Garappolo.

None of this means I will be right, none of this means the Bears won't continue to ruin his development and coach everything good out of the poor kid. But it's been 8 games, what did people expect, that after half a dozen games he would be 1995 Brett Favre? He will get better, but this year it's just all about learning, next year might be average, I for one won't be writing him off until I at least see him in his 3rd year.

Can I nominate this for post of the month? So many good points.

This whole argument sounds awfully familiar...

beardownbilly wrote:I've read and heard an awful lot about Mitch versus Jimmy G before, during and in the aftermath of this game and wanted to put some perspective into things.

It's fair to compare the two based on the fact they are both new to starting at the position and the Bears may (or more likely, may not) have had the chance to select either one prior to their selection last year. Beyond this point, a lot of what I have read isn't being looked at from a fair vantage point.

Garoppolo may have looked the more settled and assured quarterback but all this talk of it's just his 3rd start and Mitch's 8th start is almost irrelevant.

Garoppolo is 26, in his 4th year in the league (yes, he hasn't started) but he was a 4 year college player (2 year starter), he has run the Patriots scout team for 3 and a bit years, sat in the Patriots meeting rooms scouting every team in the league, dissecting plays and defences with Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Josh McDaniels. He has saw pretty much everything a defence will throw at you by watching Brady so understands what he's looking at when at the line of scrimmage considerably faster and better than Mitch.

Mitch is 23, a 3 year college player (1 year starter), ran a scout team for 4 weeks and sits in the Bears meeting room with Fox and Loggains.

The comparisons of where they are right now is not fair, lets compare them in 12,24 and even 36 months time when Mitch has had a chance to be coached by a staff that is QB friendly, understands how to get WR's open and tries to win games rather than keep them close.

Right now, I would still rather have Mitch and his upside over the older (and about to be much more expensive) Garappolo. If coached correctly and surrounded with some weapons I really believe he will be just as good if not better than Garappolo.

None of this means I will be right, none of this means the Bears won't continue to ruin his development and coach everything good out of the poor kid. But it's been 8 games, what did people expect, that after half a dozen games he would be 1995 Brett Favre? He will get better, but this year it's just all about learning, next year might be average, I for one won't be writing him off until I at least see him in his 3rd year.

A post that actually makes sense! What's up with that?

Alls I will chime in with is this, Jimmy G looked pretty damn good.

I am not giving up on Trubs and think he can be alright, but probably not until we get these dumb fuckers (coaches) out of Chicago.

Pagan wrote:This whole argument sounds awfully familiar...

and it will continue to be repeated into eternity or until the Bears actually figure out how to develop a QB

the 49ers definitely got a deal with Garappolo ... I remember the Patriots were asking a first and a third draft choice for him during the off season but San Fran got him for a second round pick, yes?

as for comparing Trubisky to him, put down the bong ... Garappolo has had a couple years seasoning and learning from people who can actually teach useful things ... so even though the Bears game was only his third official start, he came into it with the advantage of learning the ropes in an organization that knows just how the ropes should be

as for ruing the Bears not trading for Garappolo, that can be argued over if you want ... hindsight is a wonderful thing, though maybe not useful

and take this into consideration too - if the Bears had traded for Garapollo, how long would it have taken them to undo what Belichick and Brady taught him?

We've all got to remember that JG is getting paid next year. I bang the drum about this a lot admittedly but him looking decent in these games is one thing but being good enough to justify $20m per year is another. He's not a good option for a rebuilding team unless he becomes elite rather than just pretty good.

Also..there have been quite a few 1 year wonders signing multi years for $20 per with bonus..that are bench sitters now..
Not that I think JP will be that..but you just never know..

docc wrote:Also..there have been quite a few 1 year wonders signing multi years for $20 per with bonus..that are bench sitters now..
Not that I think JP will be that..but you just never know..

did you mean JG (for Garappolo) or are you talking about someone else entirely?

Dominant bitch of those leaving Soldier Field Sunday, McCaskeys must go (of course with Fox as well). Fans are outraged at the McCaskeys and their perceived/factual incompetence.

Eh that long post above was good. I would definitely take Jimmy over Mitch. As I said prior to the draft Jimmy was the best QB available by far. He made Louis Murphy look like a pro bowler. That said Mitch is comparable physically in talent level. Jimmy is more refined, and educated in the NFL.

Yep..dam office..had to answer a question..and typed JP instead of JG..!

mmmc_35 wrote:Eh that long post above was good. I would definitely take Jimmy over Mitch. As I said prior to the draft Jimmy was the best QB available by far. He made Louis Murphy look like a pro bowler. That said Mitch is comparable physically in talent level. Jimmy is more refined, and educated in the NFL.

I would take Jimmy over Biscuit because of the experience around the Patriots, but also the cost. Jimmy was a 2nd rounder and I like Biscuit.

We'd get a 1st round (3rd overall), third and fourth round picks back, but then had to give up a 2nd. I'll take that deal.

The Marshall Plan wrote:

mmmc_35 wrote:Eh that long post above was good. I would definitely take Jimmy over Mitch. As I said prior to the draft Jimmy was the best QB available by far. He made Louis Murphy look like a pro bowler. That said Mitch is comparable physically in talent level. Jimmy is more refined, and educated in the NFL.

I would take Jimmy over Biscuit because of the experience around the Patriots, but also the cost. Jimmy was a 2nd rounder and I like Biscuit.

We'd get a 1st round (3rd overall), third and fourth round picks back, but then had to give up a 2nd. I'll take that deal.

But at the draft it was a 1st and a 3rd. I think at the time I said I would have done our first for JG and their late 1st, but that wasn’t on the table.

The Patriots overplayed their hands on that a bit.

BR0D1E86 wrote:

The Marshall Plan wrote:

mmmc_35 wrote:Eh that long post above was good. I would definitely take Jimmy over Mitch. As I said prior to the draft Jimmy was the best QB available by far. He made Louis Murphy look like a pro bowler. That said Mitch is comparable physically in talent level. Jimmy is more refined, and educated in the NFL.

I would take Jimmy over Biscuit because of the experience around the Patriots, but also the cost. Jimmy was a 2nd rounder and I like Biscuit.

We'd get a 1st round (3rd overall), third and fourth round picks back, but then had to give up a 2nd. I'll take that deal.

But at the draft it was a 1st and a 3rd. I think at the time I said I would have done our first for JG and their late 1st, but that wasn’t on the table.

The Patriots overplayed their hands on that a bit.

That's a fair point. I recall that as well. Had the cost been a 2nd rounder at the time, Pace would've had to have done that deal.

I was just shocked by the Biscuit trade given the recent signing of Glennon and the QBs available in 2018.

Jimmy G won a game over the Fox lead 3-9 Chicago Bears. Put him in the HOF.

The Marshall Plan wrote:

BR0D1E86 wrote:

The Marshall Plan wrote:

mmmc_35 wrote:Eh that long post above was good. I would definitely take Jimmy over Mitch. As I said prior to the draft Jimmy was the best QB available by far. He made Louis Murphy look like a pro bowler. That said Mitch is comparable physically in talent level. Jimmy is more refined, and educated in the NFL.

I would take Jimmy over Biscuit because of the experience around the Patriots, but also the cost. Jimmy was a 2nd rounder and I like Biscuit.

We'd get a 1st round (3rd overall), third and fourth round picks back, but then had to give up a 2nd. I'll take that deal.

But at the draft it was a 1st and a 3rd. I think at the time I said I would have done our first for JG and their late 1st, but that wasn’t on the table.

The Patriots overplayed their hands on that a bit.

That's a fair point. I recall that as well. Had the cost been a 2nd rounder at the time, Pace would've had to have done that deal.

I was just shocked by the Biscuit trade given the recent signing of Glennon and the QBs available in 2018.

I agree - if the Patriots had offered up Garappolo for a second round pick prior to the Bears signing Glennon or drafting Trubisky, it would have been a chance worth taking ... but they didn't ... they were holding to their 1st and 3rd for him even after the draft