BearFan PHX

what role did he have in picking Trubisky over Watson or Mahomes?

well put. Playing Ok against a few horrible defenses does not an NFL starter make.

I dont think Fitzgerald is up to the rigors of the pro game. I dont think he is sophisticated enough in an Xs and Os kind of way, and i can see how they might like the feel good story etc - but if you actually succumb to that and start Rudy regularly as your running back, the Cinderella story just turns into you've got a guy that isn't really very good at running back LOL

100% and Ive been loving the game thread titles BTW - perfect

yup Ive understood that the whole time, that you dont like Leno, just predicted theyd keep him. I think the basis of our disagreement, and my need to look deeper, is that i cant believe they are willing to suck. Or that they dont see how bad he is. Or that their goals are not necessarily to win games but to attract viewers, and so new names at WR might be sexier than an OL - or any number of similar foolish modes of thought. And yet this ownership - from greed, ego or ignorance (or all three) doesnt make the obvious moves necessary, And I can put Leno specifically squarely on Pace. Also PFF is the worst. Like you say, by the eye test. Trubisky is really bad too. Int he first possession of the game, the offense was ready. They were blocking well, running hard, receivers getting open, and play calls in rhythm, winning the rock paper scissors game too. And yet on every play, Trubisky almost ruined it. He runs into Montgomery, he overthrows receivers. Wide open receivers make impressive and difficult catches rather than the ball being on the numbers. And later in the game, throwing into double and triple coverage week in and week out. Maybe youre right, maybe Nagy would be good with a different QB, or with an OL or whatever. But none of them have done it for whatever reason and theyve not done it together as a team. I don't see any reason not to try with all new faces - nothing of proven above average value in any of them. And you're saying "Dude theyre gonna keep the band together one more year" and I cant say that youre wrong. But they sure are if they do.

I'd just like to echo the idea that Harbaugh is NOT what we need. And neither is Pat Fitzgerald. That is all.

Last year, you and i quarreled about Leno. You said theyd keep him, and i said theyd dump him. My argument was that he was terrible and anyone could see it, yours was that you agreed with me, but Bears management wouldnt do it. As you well know you won that bet. Here we are again. Keepiung Pace and Nagy is a TERRIBLE idea - on the merits it should be easy to predict that the bears will fire them. They SHOULD. But your argument here is similar to last year - youre not saying Pace and Nagy deserve to be retained, or should be, youre saying the Bears will despite all that. I have to listen this time I guess. I can only see what the smart or right thing to do is (in my opinion of course) you are making your point based on the ineptitude of the Bears to get any of this right. I think i need to widen my scope Sell the team you cretins.

that IS interesting. and if it's true it's a huge indictment of what Nagy and Lazor couldnt get out of Trubisky. Of course, i still think it's mostly because we have played bad teams, but if the Bears go out and kick Green Bay's ass on offense that will be a different story. I will say this, for all the blame that is to go around, I havent seen any direct reason to blame DeFilipo individually for sure.

I wont quarrel if you want to get rid of Pace - it's ALL good. But let's not be so enamored of mediocrity just because it's such an improvement over really bad. Weve gotten used to such crap that we're thinking we have more than we do in Nagy and Trubisky because we beat the Lions? LOL

I should add, everything i wrote is all about the offseason and next year - they should do whatever they can to win right now, and i will be rooting for Mitch and Nagy and all of them of course.

I hear you, and I agree, but the implication is that they can't do as much because they have to cater to Trubisky. KC doesn't play Mahomes this way for example. I just don't thionk Trubisky is any better or more valuable than a bunch of other 2nd tier free agents that will be available. If (when) we have a new coaching staff, they will want a QB with a skill set that matches what they want to do. So, I don't give Trubisky any extra points for anything, in terms of his value as a player. As a person I like him. He seems very young, but he seems authentic and like a good person. I guess even if he does bomb out of the NFL he has like $20 Million in his pocket, so it's not SO bad. And if for some reason whoever the GM is decides that Trubisky is the best option out there for the $ to be ain interim guy while a draft picks learns until week 8, then fine. I like the guy. But he is not the future in any way shape or form, and we need to looking to do something major about that. And Nagy too, in my opinion. If you love Pace, we can keep him, but he's probably gone too, and it's probably for the best. And the worst case scenario is that this all happens after next year. ANd even worse if Pace drafts a QB #1, and he doesnt work out. Thats why if youre gonna change, and we really should, now's the time.

It's hard to say. Trubisky has only performed well for a couple of weeks against inferior teams. We talk about rolling him out so he only has to read half the field etc. If that's so, then he's not the right guy to model the system to the rookie. We won't even be running the system. And speaking of such things, if Nagy is gone, why keep OR draft another QB for that system? I think that decision needs to belong to the new GM / Coach. If Trubisky is the best option of all the low priced interim QBs available in the opinion of the new GM, then so be it, but I doubt it.

exactly. if Trubisky is the best placeholder, then so be it - but he is NOT the future.

Right, for all the players that teams will have to cut, there will be a lot of players available for cheaper deals too. Probably lots of short term deals, which is good for an organization that needs to field a team, but doesnt want to be tied long term to those contracts - from the point of view of the new GM coming in 2021 or 2022

I still do.

I think Nagy has been trying to play QB from the sidelines. He sees Trubisky as a kind of robot to execute his plays that should just work. ANd of course, QB is a lot more than that. And given the number of total mental lapses that Trubisky continues to make - throwing into triple coverage, making the wrong read etc, I think it is safe to say he will never be a great QB. I know that if you game plan a first read to be open, it can look good play to play. And that's Nagy playing QB from the sideline. But as soon as you need any kind of leadership or added value from the QB, Trubisky falters. Will we keep him next year while a rookie learns under him? If that makes cap sense and you need to do it fine. But that's just about managing his way out the door, and not about growing him into a real QB, but replacing him.

ahahahaha AGREE

After all the years we got burned in cover 2 by the TE up the seam, youd wish it went our way for once hahahaha

Right, I totally agree, I'm not even talking about whether the stat is right or predictive. You're totally right about the factors etc. But yes, I think even in the situation you've said, the second QB does complete 69% more of his passes than the first one. You can say his completion percentage is 30 points higher. But if you use percent to qualify the amount, then it has to be a percentage?

Agree with all of this. The OL was SOOOOOO bad, and they had zero flexibility. That is coaching. So much of the Bears' problems is coaching. What is the upside to keeping Nagy? What does he do better than average?

Yeah we may keep Trubisky on a cheap deal to play until a rookie is ready, if Trubisky is even willing to stick around for that. But in no way shape or form should we sign Trubisky to any kind of longer deal with starter money.

no, 77% more. just as you would win 77% more money int he dice game I mentioned above. You can certainly say "an additional 10% of the first 10 picks will become impact players" but the word additional, is one that says that percentage of the total added to. Without that, it's gotta be 77%. If you're gonna say 10%, you have to follow it with "of the total" and THEN add it to the figure. If youre speaking directly of the proportion of the two figures, it's 77%, the 10% applies to the percentage of the total, not the proportion between the two numbers.

This is the last I'll say it - there is no need to fight with you guys about this, we are all on the same team, and there is nothing personal about this, but your math is wrong. If you have a 13% chance in A, and a 23% chance in B, then B is not 10% more likely. B is 77% more likely. For example, if you roll one dice, the odds of rolling a 1 are 1 in 6. The odds of rolling a 1 or a 2 are 1 in 3 - roughly the same relationship we have here between the first 10 picks, and the second ten picks. If you win $1 every time you roll a 1 in game A, and you win a dollar every time you roll a 1 or a 2 in game B, you don't win 1/6 more dollars in game B, you win 100% more (for the same number of throws). So, Lucky's point that success in the first 10 picks is much higher is true, and his math was wrong and the actual math makes his point even more. You are 77% more likely to hit on a player of impact in picks 1-10 of the draft than you are to hit on a player of impact in picks 11-20. 23% vs 13%.

What's worse, is on that play the most obvious thing you see if you are reading the safeties at ALL is that they split into a cover two look, and you have Kmet running a seam for an obvious and easy touchdown. QBs are supposed to read safeties as one of the most important parts of understanding what coverage you're seeing. Rogers hits Kmet for the TD 10 out of 10 times. Trubisky is not an NFL QB.

I don't think so. I'm open to hearing why of course. The point is that you have a 77% better chance to land an impact player in the first ten picks of the draft, than you do in the next 10.