Bears acquiring Foles for a 4th

[dplank]

Yea, totally agree...Rodgers sat for a while behind Favre though, so maybe not the best example but the rest are spot on.

Nobody would get hired in the NFL in the 2010's if they went into job interviews/pressers saying:

"Hey, my offense is going to look like utter shit most of the time and hold the entire team back until my QB figures it all out."
"How long do you think?"
...
"Hmm. 3 to 5 years."

I started to make this point in my first post then deleted it to keep it simpler and to keep my main point from getting lost (that Mahomes and Wentz both found quick success in this offense as 2nd year NFL players). But to this point above, how about drafting a QB into a WCO? You literally can't do it if you actually believe it would take this long to "begin to have success" as my friend G08 put it. It just doesn't work in today's NFL/salary cap system. Assuming he's a 1st rd pick, you have to decide after his 3rd year if you want to extend his 5th year option. If he hasn't "begun to have success" yet, how do you make that decision, knowing if you do it and are wrong you've got a 20M+ turd on your roster and you are totally effed.

You're point is spot on. That quote wasn't meant that a QB won't see success early in the offense, just that it will take years to completely master (I'd bet that includes getting all the right moving pieces around him as well). And this is proven out by the examples we both gave, you're list being far more exhaustive. I kept mine short and sweet because I know what happens next - someone will cherry pick one player on your list that they can pick at for some reason, and dismiss the entire point of the post.

EVEN STILL...I STILL think Mitch can POSSIBLY turn it around. I haven't completely given up on him, 20% chance feels generous and is largely based on who he is as a person - he has the personality traits of a winner IMO. So good luck bucking the trend kid, we're all better off if you pull it off. But I'm VERY VERY relieved that we hedged our bet with Foles. Now all I want is a true, fair QB competition - I still think Trubisky gets the nod Week 1 because he practices well and the want him to win it. But then I think he puckers up at the first sign of trouble, and his mental game lets him down.

[G08]

McNabb broke out in his first full year starting in Reid's system

*checks notes*

58% completion, 3356 yards, 21 TDs, 13 INTs, 5.9 YPA, 77.8 rating

#breakoutszn

[G08]

Didn't seem to take Mahomes 3 to get it or 5 to master, he's already got an MVP and Super Bowl under his belt. Didn't seem to take Wentz that long either, odd....seemed to take the both about 1 year to be able to perform at a high level within the offense.

Eagerly awaiting the pivot to the "but Mitch only started 1 year in college" excuse.

Dude, what Mahomes has done in this league is literally unprecedented.

Before turning 24.5 years of age, Patrick Mahomes has accomplished the following:

Super Bowl Champion
Super Bowl MVP
Regular Season MVP
5,000+ yard passing season
50 passing TD season

If that's your benchmark or standard for normal, you're going to be a very, very depressed Bears fan.

[AZ_Bearfan]

I just read that Foles drinks Bulletproof Coffee which I've recently started drinking for breakfast. Between that, the U of A connection and what a great teammate he seems to be.... I'm all in on Team Foles.

[docc]

I am in Tucson..a UofA fan (Illini Alum though) watched Foles a lot..probably the best UofA QB in many years..but he has not developed as well as I hoped.. One great 8 game or so run..
I really don't care who plays..just get us competent..and proficient..so we can move the fuckin ball and rip it out of other teams hands..and score again..

Trubs or Foles..just get us there..

[dplank]

Didn't seem to take Mahomes 3 to get it or 5 to master, he's already got an MVP and Super Bowl under his belt. Didn't seem to take Wentz that long either, odd....seemed to take the both about 1 year to be able to perform at a high level within the offense.

Eagerly awaiting the pivot to the "but Mitch only started 1 year in college" excuse.

Dude, what Mahomes has done in this league is literally unprecedented.

Before turning 24.5 years of age, Patrick Mahomes has accomplished the following:

Super Bowl Champion
Super Bowl MVP
Regular Season MVP
5,000+ yard passing season
50 passing TD season

If that's your benchmark or standard for normal, you're going to be a very, very depressed Bears fan.

It's absolutely not, that's why I included Wentz, who IMO is a decent but not special prospect. You realize you did EXACTLY what I said you'd do with this and with your prior McNabb reply? Nitpick one example of many and ignore everything else that directly refutes your claim. Richie laid out a whole bunch of counter examples, not one. I gave two, because they are super recent and perfectly relevant - and you did the same thing. I don't have to cherry pick examples, the data is there for us all to see.

You also ignored the entire argument that a 3-5 year expectation for either a HC or a drafted QB is 100000% untenable to the reality of the NFL. I'd like to hear your explanation on that, I really would cause I can't wrap my head around it. That question, again, is: How can you draft a QB into a WC offense if you honestly truly believe it will take that QB up to 5 years to, as you put it, "begin to have success"? You only get 4 years plus an option year with a 1st round pick.

I get that you like the kid, but common sense isn't your friend right now bud. You're simply ignoring point after point, and example after example, that runs contrary to your only remaining talking point to back Mitch. You're better off just admitting the truth that it doesn't look good, but saying that you think Mitch will run counter to the actual trends that are plainly visible (which is where I get my 20% from).

You're an honest poster, so please answer both questions. 1 - What about Wentz, is he ALSO some magical once in a lifetime QB? 2 - how do you explain a 5 year trajectory on a drafted player where you only get 4+1 years of service (and have to commit huge money to after Year 3).

IMO, the 3-5 year comment is both A) an old trope that is not at all relevant to today's NFL and B) a true statement about the offense in general taking time to evolve, but not a ready made excuse for shitty QB play. Statement A couldn't be any more obvious, today's NFL requires QB's to step in and play damn near immediately, most good ones start their rookie year and are very good players either right then and there, or if not by Year 2. That's just how it works now. I mean...who in their right mind would purposely throw away 3-4 seasons while waiting for their QB to get up to speed, simply on the HOPE that he'll turn into the guy they hoped when they drafted him (because the performance in those seasons isn't allowed to be taken seriously)....it's just BONKERS.

[G08]

Dude, what Mahomes has done in this league is literally unprecedented.

Before turning 24.5 years of age, Patrick Mahomes has accomplished the following:

Super Bowl Champion
Super Bowl MVP
Regular Season MVP
5,000+ yard passing season
50 passing TD season

If that's your benchmark or standard for normal, you're going to be a very, very depressed Bears fan.

It's absolutely not, that's why I included Wentz, who IMO is a decent but not special prospect. You realize you did EXACTLY what I said you'd do with this and with your prior McNabb reply? Nitpick one example of many and ignore everything else that directly refutes your claim. Richie laid out a whole bunch of counter examples, not one. I gave two, because they are super recent and perfectly relevant - and you did the same thing. I don't have to cherry pick examples, the data is there for us all to see.

You also ignored the entire argument that a 3-5 year expectation for either a HC or a drafted QB is 100000% untenable to the reality of the NFL. I'd like to hear your explanation on that, I really would cause I can't wrap my head around it. That question, again, is: How can you draft a QB into a WC offense if you honestly truly believe it will take that QB up to 5 years to, as you put it, "begin to have success"? You only get 4 years plus an option year with a 1st round pick.

I get that you like the kid, but common sense isn't your friend right now bud. You're simply ignoring point after point, and example after example, that runs contrary to your only remaining talking point to back Mitch. You're better off just admitting the truth that it doesn't look good, but saying that you think Mitch will run counter to the actual trends that are plainly visible (which is where I get my 20% from).

You're an honest poster, so please answer both questions. 1 - What about Wentz, is he ALSO some magical once in a lifetime QB? 2 - how do you explain a 5 year trajectory on a drafted player where you only get 4+1 years of service (and have to commit huge money to after Year 3).

IMO, the 3-5 year comment is both A) an old trope that is not at all relevant to today's NFL and B) a true statement about the offense in general taking time to evolve, but not a ready made excuse for shitty QB play.

My McNabb reply was directly to someone who said a breakout season is what many consider to be a shit season. Am I not allowed to do that because you preemptively said I would refute a stupid take?

"What about Wentz?"
Wentz is a career 92.7 rating in this system. 63.8% comp/6.9 YPA/97 TDs/35 INTs (56 starts)
Trubisky is a career 88.7 rating in this system, 64.7% comp/6.7 YPA/41 TDs/22 INTs (29 starts)

What about him? QB ratings are a quick and lazy way to compare, but if you are blown a way by that production and say that our QB is dogshit, I don't know what to tell you.


Regarding the time it takes to learn/master this offensive system, you can ignore what countless coaches have said about learning and thriving in the West Coast Offense. I'm not going to do that. Childress said it takes 3 years to learn, 5 years to master. Nagy has said it takes 3 years to learn. Here's Aaron Rodgers' take on it:

By his estimation, it took Aaron Rodgers three years to learn the first version of the West Coast offense the Green Bay Packers ran under former coaches Mike Sherman and Mike McCarthy.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26796234

I will share this, AGAIN:

Trubisky has 29 games of experience in this offensive system

Here is how he compares to his cohorts:

• Trubisky: 64.7% / 6361 yards / 41 TDs / 22 INTs / 6.7 YPA / 88.7 rating
• Wentz: 61.51% / 7078 yards / 49 TDs / 21 INTs / 6.76 YPA / 88.8 rating
• Smith: 62.57% / 6267 yards / 41 TDs / 13 INTs / 6.76 YPA / 91.3 rating
• Foles: 61.74% / 7050 yards / 47 TDs / 17 INTs / 7.66 YPA / 94.8 rating

What is it about these 4 players through the exact same point in their development in this offensive system tells you that it's time to cut bait on our QB? Because he regressed last season? Development isn't linear, man.

[dplank]

Good post, I still disagree but good post. Mainly because development IS linear, generally speaking. I don't recall seeing players take such significant steps backwards like we just saw from Mitch. I don't recall Wentz, or McNabb, or any of these guys ever being a "bottom 3 QB", which is what Mitch was in 2019.

So here's a really clear tell IMO...no one wants Mitch to succeed more than Ryan Pace and Matt Nagy, agree? Also, no one knows how good/bad he was last year vs how much was scheme or players around him or some other factor, better than Ryan Pace and Matt Nagy, right? I can't imagine either of those two premises being refuted but if you see it differently then say so. So here's the tell....given that Pace/Nagy want it most and know it best, if they don't pick up his 5th year option, wouldn't that tell you that they don't think he's the guy? They already signaled it by bringing in Foles, but not picking up his 5th year option would be the ultimate tell IMO. We'll see what they do, but I bet they don't.

Appreciate the friendly discourse even if we don't agree, what the heck else do we have to do? I can't clean the house anymore lol...

[HisRoyalSweetness]

It's really difficult to make comparisons between the start of QB's careers in a system because they all land in different situations.

Vick (7 seasons), Smith (7 seasons - not including one missed through injury) and Brees (5 seasons) had all been in the league a long time before they started in a variation of this system.

McNabb, Rogers, Foles, Wentz and Mahomes all started their careers in the system.

Vick (1 season), Rogers (3 seasons) and Mahomes (1 season) all got to sit and learn the system for at least a year before they started.

Vick (10), Foles (14), Smith (15) and Mahomes (19) all learned it under Andy Reid who had been a head coach for 10 years plus and Rogers under McCarthy who had spent 6 years as an OC before he became head coach.

Wentz (7-9, 7-9), Foles (10-6, 8-8 Eagles first stint, 7-9, 7-9 Eagles second stint), Vick (9-6-1, 10-6), Mahomes (11-5, 12-4), Rogers (8-8, 13 -3) all started after their teams had won at least 7 games both of the two previous seasons.

Trubisky:
- Had been in the league one season under a different coach in a different system.
- Did not get to sit for a year to learn the system.
- Learned the system under a rookie head coach with only one year of experience as an OC and less than a full season calling plays.
- Started in the system after his team had gone 3-13 and 5-11 the previous two seasons.

In short, one way or another Trubisky landed in a much worse situation than any of the other QBs mentioned who have played this century.

That's not to claim that Trubisky is somehow on the verge of breaking out. It just highlights that he's faced greater challenges than most.

In his first season in the offense he showed a marked improvement from his rookie season. The question is why he not only failed to improve again in 2019 but regressed. The media just write him off as a bad QB and many fans pick up that narrative. I would to, if it wasn't for the fact that everything around him failed to improve in 2019 and actually regressed too. The o-line, the running game, the WRs not called Robinson, the talent at TE without a healthy Burton and a playcaller who the rest of the league seemed to have sussed out. If the rest of the offense had maintained their standards from 2018 then I'd be all in on lambasting Trubisky, but I can't be sure how much he's the problem when everyone across the board was equally as poor.

dplank's right that Pace and Nagy are clearly uncertain about Trubisky hence the move to bring in Foles. If they think Trubisky's the key problem then that's an indictment of them as much as Trubisky, Pace for drafting him and Nagy for failing to develop him.

It's so frustrating that all the indications so far are that not only did the Bears whiff on a top QB prospect, that happens to teams all the time, but that they did so while passing up the best young QB in the last decade and possibly the second-best too just rubs salt in the wound. It's just so... Bears.

[G08]

Good post, I still disagree but good post. Mainly because development IS linear, generally speaking. I don't recall seeing players take such significant steps backwards like we just saw from Mitch. I don't recall Wentz, or McNabb, or any of these guys ever being a "bottom 3 QB", which is what Mitch was in 2019.

So here's a really clear tell IMO...no one wants Mitch to succeed more than Ryan Pace and Matt Nagy, agree? Also, no one knows how good/bad he was last year vs how much was scheme or players around him or some other factor, better than Ryan Pace and Matt Nagy, right? I can't imagine either of those two premises being refuted but if you see it differently then say so. So here's the tell....given that Pace/Nagy want it most and know it best, if they don't pick up his 5th year option, wouldn't that tell you that they don't think he's the guy? They already signaled it by bringing in Foles, but not picking up his 5th year option would be the ultimate tell IMO. We'll see what they do, but I bet they don't.

Appreciate the friendly discourse even if we don't agree, what the heck else do we have to do? I can't clean the house anymore lol...

It isn't linear, though. Look at Peyton Manning, for example. "Broke out" in year 3 (94.7 rating/33 TDs/15 Ints)) and then regressed in year 4 (84.1/26 TDs/23 INTs).

I don't think Trubisky has done anything to warrant us picking up his 5th year option thus far in this offense. I really don't. He's got a LOT of work to do and, in my football world, he's on a short leash this season. If he doesn't show some sign of growth/progress/development surpassing what he did last season, I'm yanking him at week 6 and kicking him to the curb after the season. That's just me, though.

[G08]

It's so frustrating that all the indications so far are that not only did the Bears whiff on a top QB prospect, that happens to teams all the time, but that they did so while passing up the best young QB in the last decade and possibly the second-best too just rubs salt in the wound. It's just so... Bears.

Want to know the bitch of it? If the Bears drafted Patrick Mahomes, he wouldn't be who he is now in the NFL. Forget "Chicago is where WRs go to die", it's where QBs go to die.

This has taken over the "curse" void in my sports fandom life since the Cubs won it all in 2016.

[dplank]

Development is linear generally, I stand by that. You’re arguing that it’s not perfectly linear, and that’s fine. There are always anomalies to the standard. But your entire premise is based on an anomaly being the ultimate truth here, what I’m saying is ODDS ARE it’s not an anomaly and just who he is. I have placed those odds at about 80%, total stab in the dark.

HRH, we simply don’t know how much the rest of the offense brought Mitch down or vice versa! Arguments could be made both ways. Poor QB play can absolutely have a negative effect on the rest of the offense. As fans we don’t know the calls, reads, options, etc. But Pace and Nagy do, so they would know best if Mitch was a victim of his surrounding cast or not. If they truly believed he was, in their heart of hearts, they don’t grab Foles and they pick up his 5th year.

[The Cooler King]

Man, I think I exhausted this argument to death already a couple months ago, but there's no way to view where Mitch is at other than way behind where he needs to be. I'll leave it at that as my short and sweet 2 cents.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

HRH, we simply don’t know how much the rest of the offense brought Mitch down or vice versa!

You are of course right about that dplank.

But Trubisky can't do anything about linemen missing blocks, standing up instead of firing out on run plays, not getting to the second level on combo-blocks etc. Trubisky can't go anything about receivers dropping 2.5 times as many passes as the previous season (according to Fox Sports) especially when they happen on third down and kill drives. Trubisky can't do anything about the dearth of talent at TE without a healthy Trey Burton. Trubisky can't stop Cohen from continually running towards the sidelines to get out of bounds rather than get upfield (well maybe he could have given him a bollocking about it, but then so could the coaches). Trubisky can't call run plays that actually work if his head coach is telling him otherwise.

There were plenty of occasions when Trubisky screwed up too, but for me it was a collective failure and ultimately responsibility for collective failure lies with the coaches. I can't see replacing Trubisky with Foles will resolve the myriad issues. However, a fresh set of assistant coaches might and Nagy genuinely addressing his own failings might too.

[G08]

Development is linear generally, I stand by that. You’re arguing that it’s not perfectly linear, and that’s fine.

Okay... so Trubisky then progressed from 77.5 to 95.4, then regressed to 83.0

Peyton Manning: 71.2, 90.7, 94.7, 84.1, 88.8. 99.0, 121.1. His career really took off after year 7.

Drew Brees: 76.9, 67.5, 104.8, 89.2, 96.2, 89.4, 96.2, 109.,6. His career really took off after year 7.

Philip Rivers: 92.0, 82.4, 105.5, 104.4, 101.8, 88.7, 88.6

Ben Roethlisberger: 98.1, 98.6, 75.4, 80.1, 100.5, 97.0, 90.1

Tom Brady: 86.5, 85.7, 85.9, 92.6, 92.2. 87.9, 117.2. Best years came on/after year 7

Brett Favre: 85.3, 72.2, 90.7, 99.5, 95.8, 92.6, 87.8. 74.7, 78.0, 94.1

Matthew Stafford: 61.0, 91.3, 97.2, 79.8, 84.2, 85.7, 97.0

Jared Goff: 63.6, 100.5, 101.1, 86.5

Joe Flacco: 80.3, 88.9, 93.6, 80.9, 87.7, 73.1, 91.0, 83.1

Donovan McNabb: 77.8, 84.3, 86, 79.6, 104.7, 85, 95.5, 89.9

yatta yatta yatta

[dplank]

I get your point to a degree, but something tells me a better QB masks a lot of those issues. How many pass pro breakdowns were caused by Mitchs inability to read a defense and call blocking assignments? Or failed run plays where he should have audibled out to a better play. How many missed opportunities with open receivers because he couldn’t get to his secondary reads? I could go on...

It’s a rats nest of logic with parts of both our arguments being true to some degree. In order to know what degree, you’d have to know the offense, calls, reads, progression, audible options, etc. Only our coaches know for sure, so I follow what they do (not say) and draw my conclusions from there.

Bottom line, there are not sufficient excuses to justify a bottom 3 QB ranking from Mitch. No amount of surrounding issues, or non linear player growth, excuses that level of failure.

[dplank]

G08, Those numbers don’t tell the story you seem to think they tell. But here’s a simpler question: how many of these guys posted a bottom 3 QB season at any point in their career other than rookie year? Without looking, I bet the answer is zero.

[G08]

G08, Those numbers don’t tell the story you seem to think they tell. But here’s a simpler question: how many of these guys posted a bottom 3 QB season at any point in their career other than rookie year? Without looking, I bet the answer is zero.

It's nuanced, but I'm trying to demonstrate that QB development/production on the field is not linear. There are hiccups, there are regressions, hell your guy Carson Wentz just "regressed" to a 93.1 rating for this season.

I won't say Trubisky played well overall last season and I also don't think that he deserves to be handed the starting job this season. I love that Foles is here, I sincerely hope they have an honest and true QB competition.

I'm just on the other side of the fence... while most in Chicago think this kid is left for dead, I won't be surprised if he plays better this season. Run game must improve, as must the OL/protection.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

G08, I get what you're saying re. QB's annual fluctuations in passer rating, but you have to factor in the league norm when talking about the point careers took off. Passer ratings have been on the rise with all the rule and philosophy changes. A better way of making such judgements would be to look at where the QBs ranked relative to the rest of the league. dplank is right that on that measure Trubisky has yet to have a top performing year.

That said, it's a very small sample of only two years in the system. 2019 was a major disappointment, but was it a blip or collapse? It's too soon to say. Bringing in Foles is Pace and Nagy hedging their bets, which makes a lot of sense... but if they don't win with either QB then they will probably be on their way too and rightly so.

It may be worth noting the passer rating ranking of some of the other QBs mentioned above.

McNabb's first two years were 42nd then 21st. He jumped to 8th in his third year and remained top 10 with 9th in his fourth year (even though by today's standard his ratings were low, 84.3 and 86.0 respectively.)

Rogers hit the ground running after waiting 3 years behind Favre, posting rankings of 7th, 2nd and 3rd.

Brees went 3rd, 13th and 4th.

Vick went from 4th in his first year starting for the Eagles down to 14th and then fell all the way to 28th.

Foles went from 27th to 1st and then plummeted to 33rd.

Smith was consistent. 14th, 14th and 11th.

Wentz took the hoped for step forward going from 27th as a rookie to 5th and then 7th.

Mahomes. sat for a year and then just astounded the league. He posted rankings of 2nd and 7th.

Trubisky started well enough, 17th as mentioned, but plummeted to 31st in year two. As stated previously, the question is why? He was essentially ahead of the curve compared to some of the other young QBs in his first season in the system so, as asked previously, what went so very wrong in the second?

I think the running game or lack thereof has an awful lot to do with it. You can argue 'chicken or egg', but the end result is that the Bears have averaged 4.1 ypc (26th) and 3.7ypc (27th) in the league under Nagy.

Wentz's Eagles ranked 8th with 4.5 ypc when he took off in Year 2 and Mahome's Chiefs ranked 5th with 4.8 ypc in his first year starting.

If the Bears can generate yards on the ground then they wouldn't keep falling behind the chains and putting themselves in so many 3rd and long situations. This happened far too often last year and it makes it tough on QBs especially when their offensive linemen aren't playing well in pass protection.

[IE]

The Median, folks - the median... not these "average" stats. Those are fool's gold.

[G08]

G08, I get what you're saying re. QB's annual fluctuations in passer rating, but you have to factor in the league norm when talking about the point careers took off. Passer ratings have been on the rise with all the rule and philosophy changes. A better way of making such judgements would be to look at where the QBs ranked relative to the rest of the league. dplank is right that on that measure Trubisky has yet to have a top performing year.

That said, it's a very small sample of only two years in the system. 2019 was a major disappointment, but was it a blip or collapse? It's too soon to say. Bringing in Foles is Pace and Nagy hedging their bets, which makes a lot of sense... but if they don't win with either QB then they will probably be on their way too and rightly so.

It may be worth noting the passer rating ranking of some of the other QBs mentioned above.

McNabb's first two years were 42nd then 21st. He jumped to 8th in his third year and remained top 10 with 9th in his fourth year (even though by today's standard his ratings were low, 84.3 and 86.0 respectively.)

Rogers hit the ground running after waiting 3 years behind Favre, posting rankings of 7th, 2nd and 3rd.

Brees went 3rd, 13th and 4th.

Vick went from 4th in his first year starting for the Eagles down to 14th and then fell all the way to 28th.

Foles went from 27th to 1st and then plummeted to 33rd.

Smith was consistent. 14th, 14th and 11th.

Wentz took the hoped for step forward going from 27th as a rookie to 5th and then 7th.

Mahomes. sat for a year and then just astounded the league. He posted rankings of 2nd and 7th.

Trubisky started well enough, 17th as mentioned, but plummeted to 31st in year two. As stated previously, the question is why? He was essentially ahead of the curve compared to some of the other young QBs in his first season in the system so, as asked previously, what went so very wrong in the second?

I think the running game or lack thereof has an awful lot to do with it. You can argue 'chicken or egg', but the end result is that the Bears have averaged 4.1 ypc (26th) and 3.7ypc (27th) in the league under Nagy.

Wentz's Eagles ranked 8th with 4.5 ypc when he took off in Year 2 and Mahome's Chiefs ranked 5th with 4.8 ypc in his first year starting.

If the Bears can generate yards on the ground then they wouldn't keep falling behind the chains and putting themselves in so many 3rd and long situations. This happened far too often last year and it makes it tough on QBs especially when their offensive linemen aren't playing well in pass protection.

Valid points, and I agree about the run game.

[dplank]

@HRH and G08....

Something for you both to consider. You both talk about how he went from 17 to 31, then go on to pontificate about reasons for the decline and why you think it's an anomaly - I get that, and a lot of what you say has a lot of truth to it.

HOWEVER, AFAICT you aren't considering the possibility of the opposite side of that coin. Which is: What if the 31 isn't the anomaly but the 17 is? Why is it ok to spin yarns about how this or that could be an explanation for Mitch dropping from 17 to 31, but it's not ok to spin yarns about how Mitch got his 17 to begin with? Isn't it more consistent to question both? Accepting his prior 17 as his 'actual' starting point because you like it, and only questioning his 31 because you don't like it, isn't sound logic. You either consider surrounding circumstances in both or neither if you want to be consistent and fair in your evaluation.

I've been arguing, without any response to it that I can recall, that Mitch's 17 was highly suspect and artificially fluffed by a high TD number that he didn't fully earn. I don't accept 17 as his starting point.
That's because our defense literally had a historic turnover year and placed the offense in opposing territory frequently, and Nagy's first year play calls/trick plays WORKED at a very high rate. These two factors boosted his TD numbers artificially, which in turn boosted his QB rating artificially. Without that boost, what would his 2017 rating be and where would he rank ? I dunno, but I'm guessing low 20's (23/24 something like that).

My guess is that there's a lot of truth in both sides of this coin, and Mitch's actual reality lies somewhere in between. I don't think he's as bad as a 31st ranked QB, nor do I think he's as good as a 17th ranked one. Split the baby and he's roughly 24th/25th, which feels about right to me given the eyeball test. And folks, that just ain't good enough.

[G08]

@HRH and G08....

Something for you both to consider. You both talk about how he went from 17 to 31, then go on to pontificate about reasons for the decline and why you think it's an anomaly - I get that, and a lot of what you say has a lot of truth to it.

HOWEVER, AFAICT you aren't considering the possibility of the opposite side of that coin. Which is: What if the 31 isn't the anomaly but the 17 is? Why is it ok to spin yarns about how this or that could be an explanation for Mitch dropping from 17 to 31, but it's not ok to spin yarns about how Mitch got his 17 to begin with? Isn't it more consistent to question both? Accepting his prior 17 as his 'actual' starting point because you like it, and only questioning his 31 because you don't like it, isn't sound logic. You either consider surrounding circumstances in both or neither if you want to be consistent and fair in your evaluation.

I suppose it's possible, but if I ask you what else changed from 2018 to 2019, what would you say? To me, I would talk about how the OL regressed to shit, especially in the run game. We also had no 'U' TE on the roster, which is vital to the success of this system. I also think defenses adjusted to Nagy/Trubisky and Trubisky couldn't adjust back. I'm also of the opinion Nagy did him no favors schematically, but that's a whole other story.

I've been arguing, without any response to it that I can recall, that Mitch's 17 was highly suspect and artificially fluffed by a high TD number that he didn't fully earn. I don't accept 17 as his starting point.
That's because our defense literally had a historic turnover year and placed the offense in opposing territory frequently, and Nagy's first year play calls/trick plays WORKED at a very high rate. These two factors boosted his TD numbers artificially, which in turn boosted his QB rating artificially. Without that boost, what would his 2017 rating be and where would he rank ? I dunno, but I'm guessing low 20's (23/24 something like that).

My guess is that there's a lot of truth in both sides of this coin, and Mitch's actual reality lies somewhere in between. I don't think he's as bad as a 31st ranked QB, nor do I think he's as good as a 17th ranked one. Split the baby and he's roughly 24th/25th, which feels about right to me given the eyeball test. And folks, that just ain't good enough.

If Mitch was 29, 30 years old and this was his mean/median/mode I would be much more willing to write him off as a terrible QB. He's 25 years old. He literally is the least experienced QB to ever be drafted in the first round of the NFL draft (post NFL/AFL merger). Some call that an excuse -- sure, I can see that -- but it's also a fact. I don't want a Ryan Tannehill fiasco on our hands where we write him off (granted, Ryan was 30) and then he explodes for another team once they adjust the scheme to his strengths.

This isn't an easy offense to learn. Sage Rosenfels said that if this was the scheme he was in his entire career, his QB rating would be docked 10-20 points because of how much pressure/processing is put on the QB. That tells me that this offense takes time to master -- I posted already how Aaron Rodgers said it took him 3 years to learn this offense (WITHOUT playing!).

tl;dr - Mitch Trubisky, in my football world, is on a short leash to prove he's our future at the QB position. I give him 4-6 weeks to show progress or kick him to the curb.

[dplank]

I suppose it's possible, but if I ask you what else changed from 2018 to 2019, what would you say? To me, I would talk about how the OL regressed to shit, especially in the run game. I also think defenses adjusted to Nagy/Trubisky and Trubisky couldn't adjust back. I'm also of the opinion Nagy did him no favors schematically, but that's a whole other story.

Well, the OL in 2018 wasn't exactly stellar either, let's not pretend like it was we just overcame it. And don't "suppose it's possible", just understand that it IS the only fair way to evaluate this - you either take the stats at face value (you don't want to do that, I can understand why) OR you apply mitigating factors to both seasons. That's it, anything else is B.S./spin. But yes, I'd agree those are other things I'd point to, however A) it's unclear how much those issues are BECAUSE of Mitch and B) given his well documented innaccuracy and field vision problems, I think it's a stretch to think that whatever portion of these problems he's not responsible for would cause such a precipitous drop. So once you start evaluating fairly, meaning you either take the stats at face value for both years or you apply mitigating factors to both years, you see his 2018 ranking drop some and his 2019 ranking raise some. It starts to normalize in the range I suspect he's actually in, low 20's.

This isn't an easy offense to learn. Sage Rosenfels said that if this was the scheme he was in his entire career, his QB rating would be docked 10-20 points because of how much pressure/processing is put on the QB. That tells me that this offense takes time to master -- I posted already how Aaron Rodgers said it took him 3 years to learn this offense (WITHOUT playing!).

Again, show me one time any of these really good QB's from a WCO that completely shit the bed and posted a season where he was bottom 3 but returned to become a great QB. You're conflating two concepts. What you say is true, it takes time for a WCO to get humming, that includes WR/OL as well as QB. But you don't see guys completely shit the bed like Mitch did - that's what I find so alarming. If he just took a small step back, I'd feel very differently...VERY differently. But he didn't, he tanked, he lost his confidence completely. I'd bet everything I own that if Erin played his 3rd year instead of sitting that he'd have done better than 31.

tl;dr - Mitch Trubisky, in my football world, is on a short leash to prove he's our future at the QB position. I give him 4-6 weeks to show progress or kick him to the curb.

Bud, if we allow him to shit the bed again for 6 weeks, we've thrown 2020 away. That's not ok with me. I'm ok giving him another shot, but that leash needs to be shorter. If he shits the bed in the first couple weeks, he gone. But I'm fine giving him first crack at it and leaning towards him being our guy if the competition is close, so we really aren't that far apart. I just have less faith than you do that he's going to turn it around, and I'm not willing to throw away 2020 to find out. Waiting 6 weeks dude....that's almost 40% of the season. Just....no.

[G08]

Again, show me one time any of these really good QB's from a WCO that completely shit the bed and posted a season where he was bottom 3 but returned to become a great QB

I don't have the time to pull "bottom 3 QB" data but I can go off rating if you like (yes, I understand the average rating for QBs has inflated over the years).

Alex Smith: 63.5 rating his first 30 NFL starts // 91.9 rating the following 131 starts

Rich Gannon: 72.9 rating his first 39 starts // 89.3 rating the following 93 starts

Peyton Manning: 88.1 rating his first 96 starts // 103.1 rating the following 160 starts

yatta yatta

[G08]

Do you (I ask the room) think that quarterback isn't a developmental position? Is there a hard line that you have set where, once crossed, it's inconceivable for said quarterback to improve?

That's lunacy to me. It doesn't mean the kid WILL get better -- I have no idea -- but it sure as hell doesn't mean he CAN'T get better.

[The Cooler King]

Do you (I ask the room) think that quarterback isn't a developmental position? Is there a hard line that you have set where, once crossed, it's inconceivable for said quarterback to improve?

That's lunacy to me. It doesn't mean the kid WILL get better -- I have no idea -- but it sure as hell doesn't mean he CAN'T get better.

No one should speak in such absolutes, but the odds have to be fairly discussed. For instance looking at the examples where a guy improved without the context of the huge number who never did is seriously misreprentative of Mitch's odds.

Then we take a look at more subjective/qualitative review of Mitch, and there really isn't a lot of reason for optimism.

And I say that as someone who probably still would have rolled the dice on Mitch in 2020 and not traded for Foles.

[wab]

Mitch has that classic "late bloomer" vibe to him. That doesn't mean he's going to become some HOF superstar... but I think the guy will have a good career in the NFL.

The Bears, unfortunately, don't have time to wait. So hopefully he turns it on this season.

Ideally he'd be more of the Drew Brees/KurtWarner/Brett Favre/Steve Young kind of late bloomer. But he's probably more in line with guys like Rich Gannon, Ryan Tannehill, Alex Smith, Jake Plummer, Elvis Grbac, Matt Moore, Jeff Blake, Matt Schaub, Marc Bulger, Jake Delhomme, Trent Green, Mark Brunell...etc.

[Mikefive]

Kudos to all for such a well expressed debate. I'm enjoying it quite a lot. Thanks!

And I'll throw out a point I've expressed before and is relevant here. In my view, 10 didn't regress last year outside of his running, which is easily explained by the shoulder ding he played with for a bunch of weeks and then magically reappeared about 8 weeks post injury. His passing stats certainly regressed. But that's going to happen when your OL takes a step backward. If you take Peyton Manning at age 30 and throw him out there with a high school OL (extreme example to make a point), he's going to have far worse stats and likely to look bad doing it. But that doesn't mean that he got worse and it's exceedingly unlikely that he did, unless he was developing bad habits because he's constantly running for his life. Put him out there the next year with a legit OL and he turns back into Peyton Manning.

It won't surprise anyone, but I think wab is exactly right that Biscuit sure looks like he's going to be a late bloomer.

[dplank]

Again, show me one time any of these really good QB's from a WCO that completely shit the bed and posted a season where he was bottom 3 but returned to become a great QB

I don't have the time to pull "bottom 3 QB" data but I can go off rating if you like (yes, I understand the average rating for QBs has inflated over the years).

Alex Smith: 63.5 rating his first 30 NFL starts // 91.9 rating the following 131 starts

Rich Gannon: 72.9 rating his first 39 starts // 89.3 rating the following 93 starts

Peyton Manning: 88.1 rating his first 96 starts // 103.1 rating the following 160 starts

yatta yatta

Here's a list of Bottom 3 rated QB's over the last 10 years...there's a mixture of random people due to injuries and stuff, so I filtered this by only selecting the bottom 3 rated QB's that started at least 10 games and weren't a rookie. Best way I could figure to do it...

Mitch Trubisky
Baker Mayfield
Andy Dalton
Blake Bortles
Case Keenum
Alex Smith
Trevor Simean
Marcus Mariota
Joe Flacco (last year in Bmore)
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Brock Osweiler
Cam Newton (an anomaly, but happened in 2016)
Nick Foles (his St. Louis year, barely qualified with 11 games but gotta be truthful)
Joe Flacco again
Jameis Winston
Josh McCown
Brian Hoyer
Blake Bortles again
Geno Smith
Eli Manning (he had a terrible year in 2013)
Matt Shaub
Mark Sanchez
Brian Weeden
Ryan Taneyhill (probably our best case with Mitch)
Blaine Gabbart
Christian Ponder
Rex Grossman
Jimmy Claussen
Derek Anderson
Brett Favre (a Minnesota year, he was an old man)

So, does this look like a list you want to be on? BTW, Mitch would be on here twice if we allowed rookie seasons. Are there examples that one could point to as feint hope? Sure! But this is what I mean when I say the odds appear bigtime against him. Most of these guys simply sucked.