Game 2: bears at bucs, noon on fox

[BigbadB]

That game was painful. When Glennon finally did start finding open receivers, they couldn't catch the ball. Being Tampa's first game, I don't have a feel on whether they are just that good against the run or they just played as if the only thing they had to do defensively was protect against the run. The offense has been way too one dimensional and opposing defenses stand at the ready. Part of what I felt Kansas City did to beat New England in week 1 was step out of the box of safe plays. They opened up the field and New England prepped for short yardage plays and got burned over and over.

 

I found myself getting up to take a leak during the Bears possessions when I can typically handle that task during commercial breaks. I found it rather painful knowing that Howard was lining up as a receiver at one point yesterday. I just don't understand how an NFL team can be so lost at one position that you have to employ someone, who doesn't even do that job, just to field 11 players.

[Guest]

I wouldn't hate it if Glennon keeps starting. I want to see Trubisky like everyone else, but this season is lost. The team is banged up. There are no receivers. If Glennon leads them to another 3-13 record, Fox will be gone and they can get a king's ransom for the pick.

 

not ready to write off what I wait for 8 months of the year after two weeks.

How long you wait doesn't really matter when a 5 win caliber team shows up.

 

Right, but i'm not ready to write off the season, yet. That's probably rrally irrational, but i'm a fan.

[Brian707]

I don't think they go to Mitch until at least week 5. Especially considering Week 3 and Week 4 games are 5 days apart. They will have 11 days off before the Vikings MNF game, plenty of time for Mitch to get practice time. Still, no receivers, and a banged up O line, not really sure what the point is other than sell hope to the fan base.

[We Got The Whole 9]

It's believed Kwiatkoski suffered a season ender

[David]

I don't think they go to Mitch until at least week 5. Especially considering Week 3 and Week 4 games are 5 days apart. They will have 11 days off before the Vikings MNF game, plenty of time for Mitch to get practice time. Still, no receivers, and a banged up O line, not really sure what the point is other than sell hope to the fan base.

 

Not sure what the point is of him playing?

[Omar]

to injure himself for 2018

[Chocolate Milk]

Why is it assumed that developing on the bench is superior to just playing? I feel like every discussion on this topic just assumes this to be true and goes from there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why is it assumed that developing on the bench is superior to just playing? I feel like every discussion on this topic just assumes this to be true and goes from there.

That's weird because I do not feel that is the assumption at all. In fact, I think the majority assume it is better to play rather than sit.

 

The reasons for Mitch not to play are somewhat unique.

1) He played very little in college and needs to learn the game.

2) His NFL coaches suck.

3) His line is a band-aid on a cast for a prosthetic leg.

4) There are 1.5 skill position players for him to utilize.

5) Pittsburgh is going to kill somebody on Sunday

6) Green Bay is 4 days later and will be a disaster.

7) Tanking is the new trying.

.

.

.

.

.

8) There is some marginal benefit to actually playing the guy who chose to sign with you as a free agent, in terms of GM goodwill with agents and other vets looking to sign.

[WrigleyField 22]

Why is it assumed that developing on the bench is superior to just playing? I feel like every discussion on this topic just assumes this to be true and goes from there.

A lot is based on a few high profile cases that seemingly validate whichever theory you back (good or bad). Not sure any serious study into the topic exists.

 

I do think there are a few main theories that try to at least ascend simply anecdote;

 

1. Their confidence ruined.

"This guy is gonna be so overwhelmed in the moment. You need to put him in a place to succeed or his confidence will be crushed"

I personally find this explanation crap. If he can't handle adversity, he isn't a franchise QB

2. You'll get him killed

This is basically the David Carr defense and also used anytime it isn't an all pro line established. I generally find this to be bunk too, though there could be an extreme case where it was applicable, I suppose.

3. He needs to learn an NFL offense/reads and/or mechanics.

This is similar to 1 in the sense that you're worried the guy will be overwhelmed by the moment, but rather than his mind, you're worried about his skillset. Learning on the fly, a guy may develop bad habits, relying on whatever his particular skill set is, whether than his cannon for an arm or his legs/escapability, etc. rather than developing solid NFL QB skills that will consistently allow him to pick apart NFL defenses.

I find this the most convincing argument in general terms. However, whereas it's probably a concern for say, Watson right now who needs to develop a lot of skills, I am not concerned with this line of thinking on Trubisky from what I've seen- his skill set is already pretty advanced, I dont see the big potential for bad habits to form as he learns on the fly. It also probably helps that he doesn't have one overwhelming physical talent he is going to lean on too much. Plus, at the end of the day, the competition at QB is just too lackluster. After all, with most of the success stories on making a QB wait, they sat behind legitimately good talent.

[WrigleyField 22]

Why is it assumed that developing on the bench is superior to just playing? I feel like every discussion on this topic just assumes this to be true and goes from there.

That's weird because I do not feel that is the assumption at all. In fact, I think the majority assume it is better to play rather than sit.

 

The reasons for Mitch not to play are somewhat unique.

1) He played very little in college and needs to learn the game.

2) His NFL coaches suck.

3) His line is a band-aid on a cast for a prosthetic leg.

4) There are 1.5 skill position players for him to utilize.

5) Pittsburgh is going to kill somebody on Sunday

6) Green Bay is 4 days later and will be a disaster.

7) Tanking is the new trying.

.

.

.

.

.

8) There is some marginal benefit to actually playing the guy who chose to sign with you as a free agent, in terms of GM goodwill with agents and other vets looking to sign.

I agree that is is a unique storm of those things that's contributing to it. I thought there was a chance of "John Fox tries to save his job" that might overcome all that, but I guess not... yet.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree that is is a unique storm of those things that's contributing to it. I thought there was a chance of "John Fox tries to save his job" that might overcome all that, but I guess not... yet.

Ryan Pace chess:

 

When you're looking to scapegoat your veteran head coach and give yourself one shot at signing a good one, make him choose between the mediocre veteran QB whom you don't care about and the better rookie QB whom you don't want to see get injured. Fox is going to choose the guy you want him to choose 9 times out of 10.

[David]

yeah if there's one thing i'm pleased about with the way this season has started, is that the scenario for a mediocre 8-8 or 7-9 surprise is just about out the window to save fox's job.

 

even if mitch comes in and has them doing realistically well (like 6-6 or 7-5 or something) after the 0-4 start, i think that's enough to get fox canned.

 

and if trubisky is somehow so damn good that they do substantially better than that, i won't really be bothered by having to sit through a couple years of fox before he retires.

[jersey cubs fan]

[raw]

Why is it assumed that developing on the bench is superior to just playing? I feel like every discussion on this topic just assumes this to be true and goes from there.

A lot is based on a few high profile cases that seemingly validate whichever theory you back (good or bad). Not sure any serious study into the topic exists.

 

I do think there are a few main theories that try to at least ascend simply anecdote;

 

1. Their confidence ruined.

"This guy is gonna be so overwhelmed in the moment. You need to put him in a place to succeed or his confidence will be crushed"

I personally find this explanation crap. If he can't handle adversity, he isn't a franchise QB

2. You'll get him killed

This is basically the David Carr defense and also used anytime it isn't an all pro line established. I generally find this to be bunk too, though there could be an extreme case where it was applicable, I suppose.

3. He needs to learn an NFL offense/reads and/or mechanics.

This is similar to 1 in the sense that you're worried the guy will be overwhelmed by the moment, but rather than his mind, you're worried about his skillset. Learning on the fly, a guy may develop bad habits, relying on whatever his particular skill set is, whether than his cannon for an arm or his legs/escapability, etc. rather than developing solid NFL QB skills that will consistently allow him to pick apart NFL defenses.

I find this the most convincing argument in general terms. However, whereas it's probably a concern for say, Watson right now who needs to develop a lot of skills, I am not concerned with this line of thinking on Trubisky from what I've seen- his skill set is already pretty advanced, I dont see the big potential for bad habits to form as he learns on the fly. It also probably helps that he doesn't have one overwhelming physical talent he is going to lean on too much. Plus, at the end of the day, the competition at QB is just too lackluster. After all, with most of the success stories on making a QB wait, they sat behind legitimately good talent.

 

Agreed 100% with this.

 

1 is only an issue if the QB sucks at playing QB. People claim that guys like Aaron Rodgers, Steve Young, Steve McNair, Philip Rivers, etc. are good because they sat as rookies. And guys like Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Christian Ponder, Jamarcus Russell, etc. were bad because their teams were impatient with them and threw them on the field right away. When the common denominator is good QB vs. bad QB. Peyton & Eli Manning, Derek Carr, Roethlisberger all started pretty early on and were fine. Jake Locker, Brady Quinn, Brock Osweiler, etc. sat a year or more and it didn't help any. It's not about sitting vs. not sitting. It's about good QB vs. not good QB.

 

2 Don't buy that either. The OL isn't that bad. Hell, it's actually pretty decent. If he's getting hit too much, that's on the OC to adjust the game plan/blocking scheme to have extra protection in there. I think the Bears have allowed 4 sacks (not sure how many hits), but Trubisky would have been able to escape at least 2 of those by getting rid of the ball or getting out of the pocket. Doubt he'd be getting hit however much Glennon is either, since he's not a statue.

 

3 I don't know how you learn those things while not in a game situation. Can't get used to game speed by getting reps at 75% speed in practice. Cutler still had footwork issues when pressured. And like you said, there are plenty of reasons why this shouldn't apply as much to Trubisky as it does to others.