Trubisky will be Starter Opening Day

[G08]

It doesn't sound like either QB has taken this job by the horns. To me, you'll have a lot more egg on your face as a franchise if you start Foles and have to replace him with Trubisky. That's a double whammy unless Trubisky plays well.

I think the smart move, all things considered equal, is to start Trubisky and give him 3-4 games to "prove himself". If he's playing well, great. If he's playing decently and we're winning, shorten the leash but keep riding him. If he is playing poorly, you have to yank him and end his career with the Chicago Bears. At that point, Foles is your starter for the next 2-3 years while you identify and develop your franchise QB.

In my football world, that would be the most sensible approach. I want what is best for the franchise, and that would be for Mitch Trubisky to find success and be our QB for the next 10-12 years.

I agree will all of this except the Foles starting for 2-3 years thing. He's never started 16 games in his entire career, and expecting him do do that for 2-3 years is unrealistic IMO. If Mitch fails this season, the Bears are in a real pickle next year.

That's fair, I was thinking more along the lines of his contract and the time it buys us. But you're 100% right, Foles has never started more than 11 games in a season for the duration of his career. He's a career 88.2 rated QB.

[Hiphopopotamos]

It doesn't sound like either QB has taken this job by the horns. To me, you'll have a lot more egg on your face as a franchise if you start Foles and have to replace him with Trubisky. That's a double whammy unless Trubisky plays well.

I think the smart move, all things considered equal, is to start Trubisky and give him 3-4 games to "prove himself". If he's playing well, great. If he's playing decently and we're winning, shorten the leash but keep riding him. If he is playing poorly, you have to yank him and end his career with the Chicago Bears. At that point, Foles is your starter for the next 2-3 years while you identify and develop your franchise QB.

In my football world, that would be the most sensible approach. I want what is best for the franchise, and that would be for Mitch Trubisky to find success and be our QB for the next 10-12 years.

I agree will all of this except the Foles starting for 2-3 years thing. He's never started 16 games in his entire career, and expecting him do do that for 2-3 years is unrealistic IMO. If Mitch fails this season, the Bears are in a real pickle next year.

If the expectation is that the Bears will resign/tag Mitch if 2020 proves to be his year - What would we consider success from Mitch this season?


I'm so demoralized over the QB situation I just can't see a way that we don't have Nick Foles and a rookie QB next year.

[G08]

[G08]

I agree will all of this except the Foles starting for 2-3 years thing. He's never started 16 games in his entire career, and expecting him do do that for 2-3 years is unrealistic IMO. If Mitch fails this season, the Bears are in a real pickle next year.

If the expectation is that the Bears will resign/tag Mitch if 2020 proves to be his year - What would we consider success from Mitch this season?


I'm so demoralized over the QB situation I just can't see a way that we don't have Nick Foles and a rookie QB next year.

I don't want to put statistics on it, but I think I would consider success from Mitch to be him keeping us in games/winning us games rather than being a hindrance or the reason we lose games.

What's one or two clicks above game manager?

[Arkansasbear]

If the expectation is that the Bears will resign/tag Mitch if 2020 proves to be his year - What would we consider success from Mitch this season?


I'm so demoralized over the QB situation I just can't see a way that we don't have Nick Foles and a rookie QB next year.

I don't want to put statistics on it, but I think I would consider success from Mitch to be him keeping us in games/winning us games rather than being a hindrance or the reason we lose games.

What's one or two clicks above game manager?

I agree with GO8. I don't think there is a stat line we need to look at. Does he keep us in games? Does he win us games? Does he make good reads/process the field?

If he does those things we will win a lot of games with our defense and I'd be happy to have him back. The issue becomes at what price? 40 million / year like Dak wants? Hell no!! $10/million / year. I think so. QBs just get paid stupid amounts of money. Signed to the contract Cousins got in Minny ($28/year) that would be hard for me to say is a good use of money,

Of course much of that will depend on what the cap does as well.

[The Grizzly One]

I don't think 0-4 works out. If he is stinking up the 1st half of game 1 it's Foles time.

[IE]

I'm still kind of on the lookout for my "Mitch has a thing with snowballing negative feedback and the absence of a crowd will result in him being a different player" theory.... where he outperforms expectations this year - just enough to keep Foles on the bench - and goes deep into the playoffs by being just good enough to win a LOT.

And you see that would be perfect Bear luck for the Bears to then re-sign him and having him regress permanently when crowds return.

[G08]

I don't think crowd reaction plays that much of a role.

[wab]

If the expectation is that the Bears will resign/tag Mitch if 2020 proves to be his year - What would we consider success from Mitch this season?


I'm so demoralized over the QB situation I just can't see a way that we don't have Nick Foles and a rookie QB next year.

I don't want to put statistics on it, but I think I would consider success from Mitch to be him keeping us in games/winning us games rather than being a hindrance or the reason we lose games.

What's one or two clicks above game manager?

Basically 2018 Mitch.

[RichH55]

Listening to the presser live I was under the impression Nagy was being honest: the kid isn't a master by any means but he's working through his progressions based on what the defense is showing.

Dont listen to pressers

Also if people love Foles they should cheer for Mitch to start

Foles never plays 16 games

[IE]

To be accurate - Mitch has never started all 16 games.

It only makes sense that Mitch starts. But durability isn't necessarily one of the reasons.

[G08]

To be fair, Trubisky has missed 3 games due to injury. Foles has missed substantially more if I'm not mistaken.

[Moriarty]

I'm still kind of on the lookout for my "Mitch has a thing with snowballing negative feedback and the absence of a crowd will result in him being a different player" theory.... where he outperforms expectations this year - just enough to keep Foles on the bench - and goes deep into the playoffs by being just good enough to win a LOT.

And you see that would be perfect Bear luck for the Bears to then re-sign him and having him regress permanently when crowds return.

Ha ha
That sounds like something I'd say.
(Which is to say that I can totally see it happening)

[spudbear]

I believe Mitch starts based on three factors, and the fact that Foles has not grabbed the job during the brief preseason.
1. Because of the lack of preseason work, Mitch has more familiarity with the WR corps and offense.
2. The Bears management has this season to decide on the lure needed keeping the fish(Mitch) or cutting bait. Pace repeatedly said that QB is the most important position in sports, and we all know what he gave up and passed over to get his guy. Time for legacy making.
3. [something that has not been mentioned in either thread] The Bears OL has a new RG starting and the Bears unit was below average last season in pass protection. Mitch is much more mobile and can give the OL some time to jell and figure out their blocking. Foles could get clobbered early if he started.
I also hope Nagy moves the pocket for Mitch and utilizes his running ability. Mitch lost that last season and it is his strength, not sitting back in the pocket and reading defensive coverages for holes.