jason

Because they're moving the pocket how we've been requesting for about 5-10 years.

Is there such a thing as a coverage safety? I have never heard it uttered before. Floyd should treat the secondary to dinner for that one.

What we know so far, rolling out to the right is a great thing for Trubisky, and suddenly the Bears have a play-action game. He throws absolute bullets while on the move.

How many holding calls is that for him this year? Seems like he's good for one a game. That's a recipe for disaster when we already know Leno and Massie are each going to have at least one boneheaded play themselves. Those mistakes kill drives, just like they did tonight.

Your comments about McCown prove you don't even try to see or understand the other side of the debate. That's one of the reasons for the linear retort. There is more than one way to look at things. McCown as a parallel to Trubisky doesn't work because each player is unique. All McCown proves is the front office was completely wrong about his skillset and ability in the NFL. Point blank, people were wrong about McCown's talent. If Trubisky ends up sucking, then it won't matter when he started because the staff will have been wrong. If he ends up being a HOF QB, then the staff will have been wrong about not starting him over Glennon, who clearly sucked.

I fully understand the opposite point of view. I just vehemently disagree with it. The #2 pick should be a B-level guy already, someone who can play immediately and produce. He's not expected to be an all-star right off the bat, but he should look pro-ready. And if the front office is right, he turns into an A+ guy for years to come. The #2 pick should not be a C-level guy who needs a year of bench time, and who only gets in the game because the "seasoned" veteran in front of him performs much lower than a C-level. I don't assume a franchise QB is easy to find. You're way off there. I've been a champion of the "draft a QB every year"-strategy for quite some time. Furthermore, I've been a Bears' fan my whole life, so I know about the QB deficiencies. But that's what the other rounds are for: development guys. Guys that have incredible promise but might not be ready for some time. The first round is not for developmental players. It's not linear. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Good GMs should be looking for immediate help as well as long-term help. The better the round, the more immediate the help. The later the round, the more long term and hopeful it should be. Every player they draft should be with the intention that he will help the franchise for 5-10 years. Otherwise, why draft them? Cade McNown = Strawman. I never said the GMs and coaches were right most of the time. In fact, this franchise has proven it's the opposite. But the intent should be to find a guy who can contribute immediately if it's a first round pick. And especially if it's a first round QB selected #2 overall. Also, you're completely putting words in my mouth. All the HOF QBs you note didn't start the entire season would have started the entire season in my scenario. If anything, they'd have more stats compiled in their HOF careers. Finally, now you're the one being linear. It's proven since you don't understand my point of view in the least. This has nothing to do with the super bowl. The Bears never had a chance of getting there. This has everything to do with starting the rookie as early as possible to get him as much experience as possible. Every single NFL player will tell you that nothing is a substitute for real game experience. That's the primary reason Trubisky should have been starting. As for fitting into the tanking scenario, in order for most rookie QBs to realize their potential, especially since you all believe Pace is thinking so far ahead, he needs experience. And rookie QBs typically experience bumps, bruises, and lessons along the journey of their rookie year. The team would not be great with or without Trubisky this year, but at least he'd have more games under his belt. ALL experience helps advancement.

I think it's comical that you think other people are the ones twisting things. Especially since you really don't understand. If there was as much doubt about Trubisky as you point to, then he should not have been the #2 overall. Period. If Pace is drafting the #2 overall guy based upon uncertain potential years from now, and not actual production, then he should start scouting high schoolers for next year's draft. The draft is already an uncertainty. Making selections in the early first round based on what you think a guy might be years from now, but you KNOW he isn't right now, is simply not a good strategy.

And EVERYONE other than the head coach knew Goff should have been starting. Keep in mind, Fisher got fired in large part for his handling of the Goff situation.

If. The problem with that line of reasoning is you're using the one guy in the last decade or so who sat ala Trubisky's plan, and turned into a superstar. Regarding Trubisky, if he tears it up and turns into a HOFer, then we should all wonder why he didn't start over Glennon when he should have. If he flops, then it's a moot point.

I'll play along... Bears 2017 Remaining Schedule Week 5- Oct. 9 Vikings (2-2) (MNF) - Rookie Starting (L) Week 6- Oct. 15 at Ravens (2-2) - BAL is an enigma (W) Week 7- Oct. 22 Panthers (3-1) - CAR wins big (L) Week 8- Oct. 29 at Saints (2-2) - NO has too much offense (L) Week 9- Nov. 5 bye Week 10- Nov. 12 Packers (3-1) - GB has owned us recently (L) Week 11- Nov. 19 Lions (3-1) Split with DET (W) Week 12- Nov. 26 at Eagles (3-1) Alshon torches us (L) Week 13- Dec. 3 49ers (0-4) 49ers are bad (W) Week 14- Dec. 10 at Bengals (1-3) CIN has a bad D, not a bad O (L) Week 15- Dec. 16 at Lions (3-1) Split with DET (L) Week 16- Dec. 24 Browns (0-4) Close game (W) Week 17- Dec. 31 at Vikings (2-2) MIN in playoff hunt (L) 5-11 overall. Once again optimistic for the following year.

Oh, I get it. I don't think you get it. It's not hard to understand what Pace was doing, but in probably every single draft in NFL history, the #2 pick should be one of the guys who is absolutely ready to go day 1. If he is not ready to go on day 1, he is not worth the #2 pick overall. The #2 pick should be someone who makes an immediate impact and drastically improves your team. Period. Granted, people can be wrong on these picks, but they should absolutely be playing. Frankly, it's ignorant to argue otherwise, and it's just not sound drafting strategy to pick a guy at #2 because you think he probably will be really good in a year, but isn't right now. The list of amazing players at #2 is staggering. It's not a sure bet, because nothing is, but the #2 pick is extremely coveted. Furthermore, if the #2 guy overall has been thoroughly scouted and determined lacking enough that he needs a season to develop, then he's not worth the #2 pick. You trade DOWN to get that guy, especially if someone is allegedly trying to trade up for him. Speaking of the alleged trade, I just don't see it. The Cleveland trading up thing is BS and always was. CHI - 1.3 = 2200 CLE - 1.12 = 1200 CLE - 2.33 = 580 CLE - 2.52 = 380 CLE - 3.65 = 265 There is no way in hell Cleveland was going to forfeit their second 1st rounder, two 2nd rounders, AND something else for the #3 overall. No way. Sashi Brown is an extremely smart man, and a relative outsider to football. He could see right away that his team needed a lot more than one player, and they started stockpiling draft picks. To give up such a bounty for one pick would have been contradictory to all their draft pick accumulation. And wouldn't have helped much because the Browns still have several deficiencies, and apparently Trubisky wasn't good enough coming out of college to start on day 1. But if Cleveland WAS trading up, the Bears should have jumped all over that deal, and not doing so was stupid. Last but not least, given the general uncertainty of first round QBs, it made even less sense to pick a guy the team had enough doubts about to think he wasn't ready to even play in the NFL.

The stop-gap QB is a hindrance because those are games the rookie should be starting. At #2 overall, that's a player that needs to be NFL-ready week 1. If you're talking about someone late in the first round, then maybe there is a point. But the #2 overall needs to be an impact guy immediately. There is no assumption. Trubisky was going to be there at #3. This has been discussed before, and none of the teams wanting to trade up for a QB could have leap-frogged the Bears to #2 without going full Ditka and trading everything. None of them. Once Cleveland didn't pick Trubisky, it was a done deal.

We disagree. It's completely realistic to start the #2 overall pick in the entire NFL draft. In fact, it happens far more often than it doesn't. Furthermore, I and others here thought he looked more composed than Glennon. Long story short, he looked like the vet and Glennon looked like a rattled newbie at times. You're only looking at the positives. Stop gap QB = potential hindrance for rookie QB development since he won't see the field Stop gap QB at high $ = potential wasted money that could have been spent elsewhere on a team with many flaws Possible good QB trade bait = "Possible" not probable The simple fact is, they signed Glennon when they shouldn't have, and were essentially pigeon-holed into starting him because of a preconceived notion of which QB would be more NFL ready, and an arbitrary belief that a rookie QB would automatically be less game-ready than a veteran with far less skill. Also, it's not 20/20 hindsight since many here thought the Glennon signing was poor, and the Trubisky trade up was poor, and the combination of the two was stupid. That was real-time feedback.

This is how I feel. http://bearswire.usatoday.com/2017/10/02/b...s-5-weeks-late/

Good summary, but the team made several miscalculations. 1. Pace wasted money on Sims. If he loved Shaheen, then that's a perfect backup for Miller. When healthy, Miller is a very good TE. 2. Pace wasted money on Glennon. This can be argued until the cows come home, but it's pretty much a fact now. The team would have been better off signing re-signing Hoyer as a seat-warmer. 3. Pace should have picked up an OT or two if the plan was to go to Mitch at any point in the season. Otherwise, they could let the season implode, and pick an OT in the first round next year to protect Mitch for years to come. 4. Fox & Low-Gains should have been implementing more heavy formations with multiple TEs, given the surplus. The fact that they didn't only got amplified when the WRs started dropping like flies.

Excellent news. This pretty much makes the Glennon signing horrible. Many of us thought it was horrible from the start. This team could have gone in a completely different direction, and Trubisky has to play pretty well in order for Pace and Fox to keep their jobs. If the plan all along was to put the rookie in after trouble, then the team should have been better suited to protect a rookie and minimize rookie mistakes. Hence, I agree with the three TE sets. Play it safe, conservative, but stretch the field every now and then to keep them honest. There needs to be a good dose of play calling that involves roll outs and boot legs. Play action is paramount. If nothing is there, Trubisky can just pick up yards before sliding. He should not take any hit whatsoever in the open field.

#4. http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-vi...nseless-player/

Precisely.

I think the game comes down to pressure on Rodgers. If there isn't any, he torches the Bears. Someone will run wide open down the middle of the field after a 5-second pocket gives Rodgers time to look around. If there is, the Bears have a chance. Having said that, the pass rush is dependent upon whether or not the refs call the packers for holding, which they do a lot.

I'll address both with a simple concept that I use in training. Hold your hand just to the side of someone's face. Put a number up and swipe it across. They won't know the number. Do the same from 7-15 yards away, and they'll know the number. The optimum viewing distance on most officiating is anywhere from 7-15 yards away. It gives perspective and everything doesn't feel like a flash. Both are responsible for the sideline, but trust me, there is much better chance of catching it from behind when trailing at a greater distance than someone literally parallel, running full speed, and trying to judge inches between the foot of a world class athlete and a sideline. It's MUCH tougher than you'd imagine. As for positioning, the DJ (formerly Head Linesman) is positioned on the line of scrimmage, and the SJ is positioned approximately 20yds in advance. The SJ is supposed to keep that cushion from the play so he has proper perspective. Given that these players are world class, the cushion often shrinks to less than 20 yards, which fits perfectly into the optimum viewing distance on the majority of plays. This SJ just screwed up and didn't keep the distance. He probably thought Cohen would get tackled on the edge, so he relaxed. Furthermore, the whistle towards the mouth is anticipatory. He wouldn't have done it for a hold, because that would not have shut the play down. He would, however, have done it for the player about to go out of bounds. Based on what I can tell, the SJ who was close didn't blow it dead. If he did, he wouldn't have continued with the play. The DJ blew it dead. If the SJ blew the whistle, it was to echo the first one. Last but not least, the BJ in the deep middle of the field didn't signal TD because he couldn't know if Cohen stepped out. They are trained to wait on the sideline officials acknowledgement before making a call. If he looked back, he likely saw the DJ waving his arms to stop the clock, or he heard the whistle.

From an officiating perspective, the SJ was too close to the play and didn't notice it. He should have been much further in front of it. He looked pretty bad on the play. The official that called Cohen out of bounds would be the trailing official, the DJ. By the time that official made the call, the crowd was likely in such a frenzy that nobody heard it. That's my best guess. Also, as soon as Cohen crosses the GL the announcer mentions he was ruled out.

I watched the run and the replay, and I have to say I'm surprised some of you are so upset about the run. Was it out of bounds? Hard to tell for sure, and even the replay leaves a small amount of doubt (I personally thought he was in). Having said that, it should have come back anyway. Bellamy clearly held on the play. His initial block and subsequent drive were good, but his left arm definitely hooked the defender and restricted him. That should have been a foul. Furthermore, the last run by Jordan Howard definitely should have been called back for a hold. That was egregious. It's nice getting the calls, and its seems like the Bears don't get as many as others (looking at you, Green Bay), but both runs could easily have seen flags.

That would never be allowed at any level of football. And the penalty in the end zone for batting was enforced correctly. It's not a safety because the foul be "defense," since the Bears were on offense, if enforced at the end of the run (I.e. Spot of the fumble).

I saw a poll somewhere that asked what the Bears needed, and there were several choices. The choices were weird, however, in that they said "LT over WR" or "WR over LT." They gave a choice within the choice. It was amazing how many wanted WR over LT.