Will Mitch Trubisky start soon? Stay tuned.

[Wolverines Fan]

There are a lot of unhappy Bears fans around here after the Packers game.

 

Chicago fans are screaming for the  Mitch Trubisky era to start. They figure he won't be any worse than Glennon.

 

 

 

And I'm starting to wonder if John Fox is losing the locker room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dope man]

He needs to start....he gets the ball out quickly and is a deadly accurate passer! He wouldn't be turning the ball over near as much as Glennon and would give the team a chance to win....I also think the locker room is ready for a change, it would be a boost to the team...something new that they could rally around!

[BeeR]

It's way too early to bail on Glennon - many QBs including some of the best ever stumbled out of the gate.  But in this knee-jerk era of the NFL, I suspect we'll see Trubiski starting very soon.

[tazinib1]

17 minutes ago, BeeR said:

It's way too early to bail on Glennon - many QBs including some of the best ever stumbled out of the gate.  But in this knee-jerk era of the NFL, I suspect we'll see Trubiski starting very soon.

 

That's all good and everything but Glennon is truly bad. He's not stumbling, he's falling down the stairs drunk. Bears are going nowhere so put in the rookie and see what he's made of. Trial under fire has produced many great (HOF) QB's. 

[BeeR]

43 minutes ago, tazinib1 said:

 

That's all good and everything but Glennon is truly bad. He's not stumbling, he's falling down the stairs drunk. Bears are going nowhere so put in the rookie and see what he's made of. Trial under fire has produced many great (HOF) QB's. 

It's also doomed many very talented QBs.  And patience has worked very well to allow a guy to develop too.  Knowing there's a high draft pick standing right behind you can't help either.

 

We don't know the answer here, but IMO you paid this guy a lot of money, give him a chance. 

 

[stethant]

6 hours ago, LordOpie said:

does John Fox get to make that decision?

 

if so, zero chance. he's a slightly better jeff fisher

John Fox should've washed out of the NFL years ago - he's been riding on his prior stellar reputation for quite a while.

 

Having said that, this team is a disaster starting with the owners and as long as they're around any other change is cosmetic. It is truly sad what has happened to this once proud franchise.

 

Put in Trubisky. If Fox doesn't like it, fire him. I think the GM was an idiot to draft the guy but now you're stuck so play it out and see what you have. Glennon gives you zero chance to win - watching the end of that Green Bay game was disgusting. No fight, no heart - they just tucked their sack in between their legs and turtled the entire 4th quarter.

[tazinib1]

6 hours ago, BeeR said:

 

 

We don't know the answer here, but IMO you paid this guy a lot of money, give him a chance. 

 

 

And they paid a lot to move up and draft him. It goes both ways. Glennon is not the future. I don't care if they gave him the key to Ft. Knox. The Bears paid a heavy price on draft day for Mitch. Put him in coach!!!

[gilthorp]

The only thing stopping MT from the job is if they want to chance him getting demolished like Kiser is. I say no.

 

Let Sanchez play with these stiffs at WR.

 

Let MT play in some mop up time or when the schedule gets more favorable down the road. The team flat out sucks and the Vikings might kill him.

[Shorttynaz]

1 hour ago, tazinib1 said:

 

And they paid a lot to move up and draft him. It goes both ways. Glennon is not the future. I don't care if they gave him the key to Ft. Knox. The Bears paid a heavy price on draft day for Mitch. Put him in coach!!!

They also paid a hefty price for Glennon.  15M / year for 3 years.  One hell of an expensive backup

[gilthorp]

Year 2/3 will be $0.

[Bobby Brown]

13 hours ago, BeeR said:

It's way too early to bail on Glennon - many QBs including some of the best ever stumbled out of the gate.  But in this knee-jerk era of the NFL, I suspect we'll see Trubiski starting very soon.

Huh?  Mike Glennon is stumbling out of the gate with 4 years and 22 starts under his belt. 

 

The Texans sure look stupid by putting in Watson half way through week 1.

[Def.]

9 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Huh?  Mike Glennon is stumbling out of the gate with 4 years and 22 starts under his belt. 

 

The Texans sure look stupid by putting in Watson half way through week 1.

 

Apples to Oranges...Watson and Mitch are very different quarterbacks with different situations. 

[Big John]

This week: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000855258/article/bears-rookie-mitchell-trubisky-to-start-at-qb

[awahl63]

Super pumped - Best of luck to the kid.

 

As an aside, I also love to kiss TDs.  Just like Mitch.

[Bobby Brown]

2 hours ago, Def. said:

 

Apples to Oranges...Watson and Mitch are very different quarterbacks with different situations. 

Sure.  But Glennon has had a fairly substantial amount of work as a starting QB.  It seems to make sense to see what your future might be.  It's not knee jerk and the starting gate for Glennon was some time ago.

[indyrckstar]

On 10/1/2017 at 0:44 PM, BeeR said:

It's way too early to bail on Glennon - many QBs including some of the best ever stumbled out of the gate.  But in this knee-jerk era of the NFL, I suspect we'll see Trubiski starting very soon.

 

Glennon is terrible.  

 

Tribisky can't be any worse.

[oG1KeNoBi]

All I know is I'm starting MIN D/ST. I do hope he succeeds IRL in the future. 

[Def.]

1 hour ago, Bobby Brown said:

Sure.  But Glennon has had a fairly substantial amount of work as a starting QB.  It seems to make sense to see what your future might be.  It's not knee jerk and the starting gate for Glennon was some time ago.

 

Eh...22 starts over 4 years is not exactly what I'd consider substantial, especially since 13 of them were his rookie year.  However, I'm not defending Glennon just don't want people to think there is anything but a minute chance of seeing the results Watson and Houston have recently had. 

 

30 minutes ago, indyrckstar said:

 

Glennon is terrible.  

 

Tribisky can't be any worse.

 

Not going to say Glennon is good but you have a team with no starting talent at WR, an offensive line still returning from injury, and a rookie QB that just started roughly 4-5 months ago taking snaps from center while trying to actually read defenses.  It is quite possible, if not probable, he will be worse than Glennon because he is simply not ready.  I know its hard not to play him because the next QB class is suppose to be good and you got to see what you have, but rushing Mitch out there does seem a great way to set him up for ruin.  David Carr analogy has been flung around a lot here, and its pretty valid to fear that will occur.   A smart team would not play Mitch till late in the year if at all, but then again a smart team wouldn't have spent all that draft capital just to move up one spot in the draft either. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Def.

[indyrckstar]

18 minutes ago, Def. said:

 

Eh...22 starts over 4 years is not exactly what I'd consider substantial, especially since 13 of them were his rookie year.  However, I'm not defending Glennon just don't want people to think there is anything but a minute chance of seeing the results Watson and Houston have recently had. 

 

 

Not going to say Glennon is good but you have a team with no starting talent at WR, an offensive line still returning from injury, and a rookie QB that just started roughly 4-5 months ago taking snaps from center while trying to actually read defenses.  It is quite possible, if not probable, he will be worse than Glennon because he is simply not ready.  I know its hard not to play him because the next QB class is suppose to be good and you got to see what you have, but rushing Mitch out there does seem a great way to set him up for ruin.  David Carr analogy has been flung around a lot here, and its pretty valid to fear that will occur.   A smart team would not play Mitch till late in the year if at all, but then again a smart team wouldn't have spent all that draft capital just to move up one spot in the draft either. 

 

 

I agree with having no WRs to work with.  

 

Still, I would say play him.  Experience is key in development.  

 

 

[NAUgrad]

1 hour ago, Def. said:

 

Eh...22 starts over 4 years is not exactly what I'd consider substantial, especially since 13 of them were his rookie year.  However, I'm not defending Glennon just don't want people to think there is anything but a minute chance of seeing the results Watson and Houston have recently had. 

 

 

Not going to say Glennon is good but you have a team with no starting talent at WR, an offensive line still returning from injury, and a rookie QB that just started roughly 4-5 months ago taking snaps from center while trying to actually read defenses.  It is quite possible, if not probable, he will be worse than Glennon because he is simply not ready.  I know its hard not to play him because the next QB class is suppose to be good and you got to see what you have, but rushing Mitch out there does seem a great way to set him up for ruin.  David Carr analogy has been flung around a lot here, and its pretty valid to fear that will occur.   A smart team would not play Mitch till late in the year if at all, but then again a smart team wouldn't have spent all that draft capital just to move up one spot in the draft either. 

Agreed with everything here, but it's a fine line between knowing your QB is that bad and putting in the backup to develop/make it look like you're trying to win games now.  I think we've seen enough of Glennon to know that he's just not very good.  This could backfire easily like you mentioned but you have to do something.

[Def.]

8 minutes ago, NAUgrad said:

Agreed with everything here, but it's a fine line between knowing your QB is that bad and putting in the backup to develop/make it look like you're trying to win games now.  I think we've seen enough of Glennon to know that he's just not very good.  This could backfire easily like you mentioned but you have to do something.

 

That seems to be the narrative of fans around here to which I will just simply ask, why?  Why does this specific something have to be done?  If it has a better chance of making things worse for your investment rather then better, leave him on the bench.  Trot Glennon or hell even Sanchez out there, and get them killed instead.  

 

The success rate for draft picks is small anyways and with all this I just don't see it.  No WR talent, an under developed QB even by college standards,  and poor Defensive/Special teams that offer little to no assistance.  Factor in an unstable management team and a frustrated fan base and you have an environment that is not conducive for positive experiences, let alone success.  Hope I'm wrong for my Bear fan friends, but really think trial by fire will get Mitch burnt. 

[stevegrab]

44 minutes ago, Def. said:

 

That seems to be the narrative of fans around here to which I will just simply ask, why?  Why does this specific something have to be done?  If it has a better chance of making things worse for your investment rather then better, leave him on the bench.  Trot Glennon or hell even Sanchez out there, and get them killed instead. 

 

The success rate for draft picks is small anyways and with all this I just don't see it.  No WR talent, an under developed QB even by college standards,  and poor Defensive/Special teams that offer little to no assistance.  Factor in an unstable management team and a frustrated fan base and you have an environment that is not conducive for positive experiences, let alone success.  Hope I'm wrong for my Bear fan friends, but really think trial by fire will get Mitch burnt.

 

They want, no demand change and action. They cannot comprehend the chance that starting a young QB too early, on a team with no talent, will ruin him. They think "well if he loses and comes out with shattered confidence then we proved he wasn't our guy and we'll draft another one."

 

We're seeing it in CLE with Kizer, he's looked horrible, the team itself is bad too, but the kid is just not prepared, gets rattled and panics. Doesn't help that his WR suck, and the supposed storng defensive unit is putting them down 2-3 TDs by halftime every week, so the running game is abandoned.

[Beardown34]

I thought Trubisky was very impressive in the preseason, albeit mostly against the 2s and 3s. He was in total control of the game when he was out there, an accurate and confident passer, great pocket presence, and the ability to run when the opportunity presented itself. The Bears need to get him on the field. Glennon is a career back up at best. I'll be one of the 0.2% that starts him week 5.

Wish me luck.

[dope man]

Chicago has a decent offensive line. I don't think think is a bad spot for the kid. HE Gets the ball out quickly and good decisions. He is a very accurate passer as well...think he will do well!

[BeeR]

On 10/2/2017 at 2:37 PM, indyrckstar said:

 

Glennon is terrible.  

 

Tribisky can't be any worse.

He has stumbled but I wouldn't say "terrible."  And again that's over a whopping 4 whole games with not exactly the most support around.  Plus feeling the rookie breathing over his shoulder can't exactly help.  IMO da Bears set him up for failure by drafting 'ski.   

 

Regardless, 4 games is a ridiculously small sample size to go on.  They just know all the fans want to see the rook and caved.