Mitch is getting the start

[David]

 

Holy horsefeathers, how is this even a choice for you?

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

Did I miscount the number of "y"s or something? "Why does this have to be MNF and up against a cub playoff game?" Doesn't have a lot of interpretations

 

Clearly if you think I'm having any difficulty choosing which one to watch, you are coming up with one of those few incorrect interpretations.

 

I can be very excited about a new era starting for the Bears, lament not being able to watch it, and still have zero hesitation about where I'll be on Monday night (assuming they are scheduled concurrently). I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who would like to watch both of these live (and at separate times) if they could. I'm lamenting the fact that it isn't scheduled on the day that the vast majority of NFL games are scheduled when the NLDS also happens to have an off day.

 

Anyway, the usage of our tickets is not entirely up to me so we'll see if I'll even be going to that game. Probably am, but if I'm not, I'll be at a bar watching both.

[David]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Tim]

 

Holy horsefeathers, how is this even a choice for you?

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

Did I miscount the number of "y"s or something? "Why does this have to be MNF and up against a cub playoff game?" Doesn't have a lot of interpretations

It seems to have a crucial one that you're missing - he's lamenting that he's going to have to miss Tubby's debut while watching the Cubs game.

[David]

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

Did I miscount the number of "y"s or something? "Why does this have to be MNF and up against a cub playoff game?" Doesn't have a lot of interpretations

It seems to have a crucial one that you're missing - he's lamenting that he's going to have to miss Tubby's debut while watching the Cubs game.

 

after the trambopoline conversation the other day, i want this to be intentional so badly but either way it's great

[Thed Hoyerstein]

whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy does this have to be MNF and up against a cubs playoff game

 

Holy horsefeathers, how is this even a choice for you?

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

no, it's that I'm still giddy as hell that the cubs won the World Series. the multi-part was my drunken celebration.

[David]

 

Holy horsefeathers, how is this even a choice for you?

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

no, it's that I'm still giddy as hell that the cubs won the World Series. the multi-part was my drunken celebration.

 

what the what

[Liam Neeson]

What a turn of events.

[Sammy Sofa]

It reads like he just woke up from an 11 month-long bender.

[Guest]

this is like the end of The Prestige.

[Guest]

or wait, Primal Fear.

 

"Are you telling me that there never was a Thad Hoyerstein?"

 

"You don't get it do you? There never was a Derwood."

[Thed Hoyerstein]

Your reading comprehension is poor

 

no, it's that I'm still giddy as hell that the cubs won the World Series. the multi-part was my drunken celebration.

 

what the what

 

crap, I was slow and misread the post. sounds like a mike glennon thing to do, so I'll gladly sit this one out on the bench going-forward.

[David]

 

no, it's that I'm still giddy as hell that the cubs won the World Series. the multi-part was my drunken celebration.

 

what the what

 

crap, that was response was slow and read at a mike glennon clip.

 

[Guest]

i get what happened, but that was horsefeathering hilarious for a second.

[LeonDurham]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

[jersey cubs fan]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

This is terrible sciencing.

 

Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history.

 

What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision.

[WrigleyField 22]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

This is terrible sciencing.

 

Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history.

 

What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision.

I mean he is right in that hanging your hat on a couple andectodes is a terrible way to do it.

[David]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

This is terrible sciencing.

 

Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history.

 

What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision.

I mean he is right in that hanging your hat on a couple andectodes is a terrible way to do it.

 

Yep.

 

And one little sidenote that bothers me when people bring up Rodgers sitting for so long. They had him making major mechanical changes to his throwing motion because it was flawed. To me, there's a lot more to that than some learning through osmosis/observing games from the sideline and whatnot.

[LeonDurham]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

This is terrible sciencing.

 

Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history.

 

What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision.

 

 

 

Completely disagree. There is no control.

 

You can't point to Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder and say that starting early ruined them. Because you have no data on what they would've been if they sat. Consequently, you can't point to Rodgers and say it helped him. Because you have no data otherwise.

 

This is my point. You pointing to Peyton's career starts is basically a rationalization of your point of view that Mitch should've sat. But despite those zillion career starts, he was still horrible for a year. How do you reconcile that? And what about Cam Newton? He had few starts like Mitch. Would've he have been better if he sat? What data do you have?

 

Sitting Mitch may very well have been the right thing to do. But using individual anecdotes as proof is silly. There are anecdotes supporting both points of view, and none of them are appropriately controlled.

[jersey cubs fan]

Would've he have been better if he sat? What data do you have?

 

Sitting Mitch may very well have been the right thing to do. But using individual anecdotes as proof is silly. There are anecdotes supporting both points of view, and none of them are appropriately controlled.

 

Yeah, no horsefeathers.

 

Football isn't baseball.

 

There was no scientific support for starting Mitch, or benching him. Science has nothing to do with it. Data has nothing to do with it.

 

Mitch was an underutilized college player who probably stood to benefit from a little time on the bench. But we don't know.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Peyton never played 7000 college games. - scientific fact

[jersey cubs fan]

Peyton never played 7000 college games. - scientific fact

6,950 were unauthorized games of hide the salami with training room staffers

[minnesotacubsfan]

Peyton never played 7000 college games. - scientific fact

6,950 were unauthorized games of hide the salami with training room staffers

 

 

#fakenewz

[David]

i guess glennon gets to keep the captain designation? lol

 

i can't imagine they'd actually have him out there for the toss

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Guest]

You know what drives me crazy?

 

When someone believes its better to sit a QB, they point out how Aaron Rodgers sat and he became awesome. And they point to all the QBs that didn't sit- ie Blaine Gabbert, who are awful.

 

Explain why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW HOW RODGERS WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DIDN'T SIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BLAINE GABBERT WOULD'VE TURNED OUT IF HE DID.

 

But odds are, Rodgers would probably still be awesome and Gabbert would still suck. And why do they ignore Peyton Manning, who was put in right away and because one of the best of all time?

 

I'm a scientist so it drives me crazy. Sorry for the rant.

This is terrible sciencing.

 

Peyton Manning played 7,000 games in college and was as prepared to play from Day 1 in the NFL than anybody in history.

 

What drives me crazy is people being apoplectic when you say you prefer a guy with limited college playing time to at least sit for a while to start his pro career. I think starting Mitch from week 1 would have been a mistake. I think starting him now is the right decision.

I mean he is right in that hanging your hat on a couple andectodes is a terrible way to do it.

 

He's also right in saying there's no real rhyme or reason governing outcomes.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Prediction for Mitch?

 

11-22, 182. 1 Td 1 int