Day 1 is done

[AZ54]

With his first practice out of the way we can now settle down for the long haul with Trubisky.

 

Of note from Moon Mullin are these comments from some scouts around the league:

----------------------------

http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-bears/ju...-mitch-trubisky

 

Two AFC scouts revealed that they had the highest grade on Trubisky that they’d had on any quarterback over the past six years. That means: higher than Jameis Winston; higher than Marcus Mariota; higher than Cam Newton; higher than Russell Wilson; higher than Andrew Luck; higher than Derek Carr; higher than Carson Wentz.

 

The evaluation of one NFC regional scouting team was that “Trubisky is an almost perfect quarterback prospect” and that 'the Bears should count their lucky stars he only started 13 games because if he was a two-year starter, he goes 1/1 [overall No. 1] without hesitation.”

----------------------------

 

Other than that we only know that Trubisky was able to at least handle getting rookies in/out of the huddle reasonably well for his first day. That ain't much but it's far better than Goff last year.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

With his first practice out of the way we can now settle down for the long haul with Trubisky.

 

Of note from Moon Mullin are these comments from some scouts around the league:

----------------------------

http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-bears/ju...-mitch-trubisky

 

Two AFC scouts revealed that they had the highest grade on Trubisky that they’d had on any quarterback over the past six years. That means: higher than Jameis Winston; higher than Marcus Mariota; higher than Cam Newton; higher than Russell Wilson; higher than Andrew Luck; higher than Derek Carr; higher than Carson Wentz.

 

The evaluation of one NFC regional scouting team was that “Trubisky is an almost perfect quarterback prospect” and that 'the Bears should count their lucky stars he only started 13 games because if he was a two-year starter, he goes 1/1 [overall No. 1] without hesitation.”

----------------------------

 

Other than that we only know that Trubisky was able to at least handle getting rookies in/out of the huddle reasonably well for his first day. That ain't much but it's far better than Goff last year.

Could you imagine that. Wish Chicago would jump on his bandwagon fully, great reason to be excited. Chicago seems to have dumbed down lately though, the fans booing ...reading comment lines after newspaper articles....etc. Concern and criticism is fine, Iam concerned and 3 years I may be critical.

[Stinger226]

With his first practice out of the way we can now settle down for the long haul with Trubisky.

 

Of note from Moon Mullin are these comments from some scouts around the league:

----------------------------

http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-bears/ju...-mitch-trubisky

 

Two AFC scouts revealed that they had the highest grade on Trubisky that they’d had on any quarterback over the past six years. That means: higher than Jameis Winston; higher than Marcus Mariota; higher than Cam Newton; higher than Russell Wilson; higher than Andrew Luck; higher than Derek Carr; higher than Carson Wentz.

 

The evaluation of one NFC regional scouting team was that “Trubisky is an almost perfect quarterback prospect” and that 'the Bears should count their lucky stars he only started 13 games because if he was a two-year starter, he goes 1/1 [overall No. 1] without hesitation.”

----------------------------

 

Other than that we only know that Trubisky was able to at least handle getting rookies in/out of the huddle reasonably well for his first day. That ain't much but it's far better than Goff last year.

Some scouts are right and some wrong on players, but it is encouraging that you find some that agree with Pace on his evaluation. The proper way for this to develop is for Mitch to seat for two years and start his third year. It worked for Rodgers. Is this turns out to work out that way then that means Glennon is doing well enough and we are probably winning some games. I wish both QBs to be successful and puts us in a good spot at a position that has sucked for years and years.

 

[BearFan2000]

How crazy and awesome would it be if not only does Trubisky prove to be starter quality but future HOF'er quality. It would be awesome to finally be the ones to strike gold in the QB position. I do agree with the analysis that had he been a 2 year starter at the level of his one year starting, no doubt he'd have been highly coveted commodity and would have probably been a steeper price. Now that is 3 teams scouts out of 32 teams for perspective. But the possibility of the Bears finally striking gold on a QB is something we fans have longed for. If that does happen we'd look back at this pick and what we gave up may end up looking like peanuts.

[madlithuanian]

I think we would collectively cr@p our pants!

 

How crazy and awesome would it be if not only does Trubisky prove to be starter quality but future HOF'er quality. It would be awesome to finally be the ones to strike gold in the QB position. I do agree with the analysis that had he been a 2 year starter at the level of his one year starting, no doubt he'd have been highly coveted commodity and would have probably been a steeper price. Now that is 3 teams scouts out of 32 teams for perspective. But the possibility of the Bears finally striking gold on a QB is something we fans have longed for. If that does happen we'd look back at this pick and what we gave up may end up looking like peanuts.

 

[adam]

How crazy and awesome would it be if not only does Trubisky prove to be starter quality but future HOF'er quality. It would be awesome to finally be the ones to strike gold in the QB position. I do agree with the analysis that had he been a 2 year starter at the level of his one year starting, no doubt he'd have been highly coveted commodity and would have probably been a steeper price. Now that is 3 teams scouts out of 32 teams for perspective. But the possibility of the Bears finally striking gold on a QB is something we fans have longed for. If that does happen we'd look back at this pick and what we gave up may end up looking like peanuts.

3 scouts had him rated one of the best to come out in the last few years, but I think the other 29 had him rated pretty high too. The problem with this is most teams that were not looking for a 1st or 2nd round Qb probably didn't scout him that hard, so the true assessments will come from only a handful of scouts and teams. If you count the Bears, that is 4 teams that had him very highly rated as well.

 

If he started more than one season, he is definitely going #1 to Cleveland. We will see how it works out, but Cleveland has now passed on Wentz, Trubisky, and Watson.

[BearFan2000]

3 scouts had him rated one of the best to come out in the last few years, but I think the other 29 had him rated pretty high too. The problem with this is most teams that were not looking for a 1st or 2nd round Qb probably didn't scout him that hard, so the true assessments will come from only a handful of scouts and teams. If you count the Bears, that is 4 teams that had him very highly rated as well.

 

If he started more than one season, he is definitely going #1 to Cleveland. We will see how it works out, but Cleveland has now passed on Wentz, Trubisky, and Watson.

 

Good point most of the scouts from teams who aren't QB needy enough to be interested or need to take one high wouldn't spend valuable time and resources to personally evaluate. They'd probably only do research to the extent that a QB might effect their pick. It'll all be moot if he doesn't live up or proof Pace knew what he was doing if he succeeds. We have to hope he succeeds and solves the QB problem for the next 5-10 years.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Could you imagine that. Wish Chicago would jump on his bandwagon fully, great reason to be excited. Chicago seems to have dumbed down lately though, the fans booing ...reading comment lines after newspaper articles....etc. Concern and criticism is fine, Iam concerned and 3 years I may be critical.

We'll get a lot of fluff...hopefully Trubisky's body of work will make everyone a long-term fan of his (while bringing championships to Chicago)!!!

[Alaskan Grizzly]

With his first practice out of the way we can now settle down for the long haul.

 

...we only know that Trubisky was able to at least handle getting rookies in/out of the huddle reasonably well for his first day. That ain't much but it's far better than Goff last year.

 

In watching the limited video they had from mini-camp it looks as though his basic mechanics are sound. This considering he's never played in an NFL comparable offense. He had good throwing motions rolling right and left and kept a good base when releasing the ball (as opposed to rocking back or throwing off one foot - ala Cutler). I suspect his height at 6'2" (a tad short for prototypical) will help in seeing over olinemen. Just an aside and note on the point; Brees measures at 6'0" and is known to stand on his toes occasionally when throwing downfield. This doesn't seem to have affected his ability at getting 4,000 yard seasons.

 

All that said; mini-camp isn't much better than the Draft at assessing ones true long-term ability. Meaning when you see a prospect running drills in shorts and t-shirt you won't get the full measure of how they'll perform in pads...or with a 300 lb Dlineman bearing down on them.

 

I think we'll get more an idea of his being comfortable once they start regular camp. Hell have a lot more to work through with pads and defenders on him and on the field. But his saving grace is that Glennon was meant to start this year anyhow so he'll have an opportunity to absorb as much as he can.

 

Personally I think Pace will get graded on the last two drafts and the other four picks this year before it's determined how well he did in picking Trubisky.

[jason]

3 scouts had him rated one of the best to come out in the last few years, but I think the other 29 had him rated pretty high too. The problem with this is most teams that were not looking for a 1st or 2nd round Qb probably didn't scout him that hard, so the true assessments will come from only a handful of scouts and teams. If you count the Bears, that is 4 teams that had him very highly rated as well.

 

If he started more than one season, he is definitely going #1 to Cleveland. We will see how it works out, but Cleveland has now passed on Wentz, Trubisky, and Watson.

 

I know we'll never know who those anonymous three scouts are, but it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons.

 

If they had Trubisky as the best QB in the last 6-8 years, then they should have been beating down their GM's office door to make the move up. They should have offered a Ditka trade. I mean, best QB in nearly a decade is some serious praise. And if they didn't, then they're weak as hell, and don't really believe in their own evaluations.

 

Another reason is whether these guys' evaluations are worth a damn or not. I mean, if they had Trubisky as the #1 guy in nearly a decade, but had Manziel #2, EJ Manual #3, Bridgewater #4, and Jake Locker at #5, then their evaluations are complete garbage.

[adam]

I know we'll never know who those anonymous three scouts are, but it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons.

 

If they had Trubisky as the best QB in the last 6-8 years, then they should have been beating down their GM's office door to make the move up. They should have offered a Ditka trade. I mean, best QB in nearly a decade is some serious praise. And if they didn't, then they're weak as hell, and don't really believe in their own evaluations.

 

Another reason is whether these guys' evaluations are worth a damn or not. I mean, if they had Trubisky as the #1 guy in nearly a decade, but had Manziel #2, EJ Manual #3, Bridgewater #4, and Jake Locker at #5, then their evaluations are complete garbage.

Scouts and GM's don't have to always agree, they get a vote, but that's it. Also, there is the PR backlash, does the GM have enough balls to sell the house on a QB and put all his chips on the table and sink or swim with that QB? I think Pace basically did that by moving up 1 pick. The Bears were in a unique position to give up the least but still give the traded team (SF) a great pick (#3) in return. So SF gets "their" guy and a couple of extra picks to look like clear winners and masterminds. No other team had that capital to give besides CLE but due to their sabermetrics view of the world, that would not be in line with their new process.

 

Cleveland might've been fielding calls for #1 and turned down all offers. Since teams don't have to discuss who they would pick in the trade, there could've been several teams looking to move up to take Trubisky. We know we had offers to move up to #3 and SF had offers to move up to #2, so it is logical to assume the same happened for CLE at #1, and some of those could've been for Trubisky.

 

Based on some other articles on the topic, Trubisky was #1 (on his small sample size), so that possibly changed other teams assessments of him. They had him #1, over Luck, Newton, Mariota, Winston, Carr, Wentz, not Manziel, Manuel, Bridgewater and Locker, though I am sure he was rated higher than all of them.

 

After hearing about the rookie minicamps and the struggles of Mahomes and Watson, I think we found a gem in Trubisky. Just reading thru some of the articles of the QB's and the initial impressions, most of Watson's are praising him for his "work ethic" (like saying she has a nice personality) but not comparable to the high praise Trubisky has already seen for that small timeframe. Mahomes has basically received the "work in progress" "not ready for primetime" tag. So just on that, I think Pace got it right. I wanted Watson, and was ok with him at #3, so I hope Pace proves me wrong.

 

 

[Stinger226]

I know we'll never know who those anonymous three scouts are, but it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons.

 

If they had Trubisky as the best QB in the last 6-8 years, then they should have been beating down their GM's office door to make the move up. They should have offered a Ditka trade. I mean, best QB in nearly a decade is some serious praise. And if they didn't, then they're weak as hell, and don't really believe in their own evaluations.

 

Another reason is whether these guys' evaluations are worth a damn or not. I mean, if they had Trubisky as the #1 guy in nearly a decade, but had Manziel #2, EJ Manual #3, Bridgewater #4, and Jake Locker at #5, then their evaluations are complete garbage.

 

To counter your post. If your teams like NE, Ten, Oak, why would they be beating down the doors to trade up to get them.

If you had a high pick, then maybe they were trying to trade up to get him.

 

You are right about ANY scouts opinion, they are the so called experts and miss at a high rate, but in saying that , anybody that was negative about Tribusky can have the same thing said for them.

 

It only matters how he turns out. It only matters that Pace was right. And for all the opinions of scouts, remember our dont mean anything either.

 

[madlithuanian]

What if these horrible scouts collectively had Wentz, Mariota, and Winston as their 2,3,4...instead of the most questionable QB picks known to man in the last few drafts (what if they were the scouts/GM's of those teams...not needing a QB right now)? Then these "questionable scouts of ill repute" aren't so awful as you speculate.

 

You choose negativity and doom at every turn regarding this pick. Dang man... Give the kid a chance. Let this play out.

 

It's easy to be negative w/ this franchise since we've been virtually inept for 30 years. If we sat down w/ a shrink they'd tell us to move on from the Bears already as it's an unhealthy relationship... So, if I'm going to suffer with these guys, I'd at least personally rather take a perspective that it'll get better than assume the worst. Otherwise, why watch unless you are a masochist? It boils down to simple hope.

 

I love what you bring to the table here with some very well thought out arguments and information throughout most your posts. I respect and enjoy reading your posts tremendously. However, with this topic, right now it simply feels like you are going overboard with an agenda of doom and gloom. You appear to be rationalizing negativity. It's easy to assume the worst since the odds are in your favor. I never thought you were the one to take the easy road. That's my job. I'm Simple Jack. I drink a glass of Lagavulin and it makes everything better...or at least dulls the pain.

 

 

 

 

 

I know we'll never know who those anonymous three scouts are, but it would be interesting to know for a variety of reasons.

 

If they had Trubisky as the best QB in the last 6-8 years, then they should have been beating down their GM's office door to make the move up. They should have offered a Ditka trade. I mean, best QB in nearly a decade is some serious praise. And if they didn't, then they're weak as hell, and don't really believe in their own evaluations.

 

Another reason is whether these guys' evaluations are worth a damn or not. I mean, if they had Trubisky as the #1 guy in nearly a decade, but had Manziel #2, EJ Manual #3, Bridgewater #4, and Jake Locker at #5, then their evaluations are complete garbage.

 

[jason]

To counter your post. If your teams like NE, Ten, Oak, why would they be beating down the doors to trade up to get them.

If you had a high pick, then maybe they were trying to trade up to get him.

 

You are right about ANY scouts opinion, they are the so called experts and miss at a high rate, but in saying that , anybody that was negative about Tribusky can have the same thing said for them.

 

It only matters how he turns out. It only matters that Pace was right. And for all the opinions of scouts, remember our dont mean anything either.

 

True regarding the teams with young franchise guys, and seemingly ageless superstars. If it's from any of those very few teams, then it's understandable if they didn't move up.

 

Otherwise, however, they should have going crazy to get the best QB in a decade on their team. Each guy gets a vote, but when you start throwing out phrases like "Best QB prospect in a decade," that should be a serious attention-getting and change minds.

[jason]

What if these horrible scouts collectively had Wentz, Mariota, and Winston as their 2,3,4...instead of the most questionable QB picks known to man in the last few drafts (what if they were the scouts/GM's of those teams...not needing a QB right now)? Then these "questionable scouts of ill repute" aren't so awful as you speculate.

 

That's why I phrased it as a what-if. If these anonymous scouts have a track record of killing it, or more specifically killing it with QB evaluation, then their comments hold significantly more value than a guy who rated a bunch of duds highly.

 

You choose negativity and doom at every turn regarding this pick. Dang man... Give the kid a chance. Let this play out.

 

It's easy to be negative w/ this franchise since we've been virtually inept for 30 years. If we sat down w/ a shrink they'd tell us to move on from the Bears already as it's an unhealthy relationship... So, if I'm going to suffer with these guys, I'd at least personally rather take a perspective that it'll get better than assume the worst. Otherwise, why watch unless you are a masochist? It boils down to simple hope.

 

I love what you bring to the table here with some very well thought out arguments and information throughout most your posts. I respect and enjoy reading your posts tremendously. However, with this topic, right now it simply feels like you are going overboard with an agenda of doom and gloom. You appear to be rationalizing negativity. It's easy to assume the worst since the odds are in your favor. I never thought you were the one to take the easy road. That's my job. I'm Simple Jack. I drink a glass of Lagavulin and it makes everything better...or at least dulls the pain.

 

I'm an eternal pessimist. It comes with being a Chicago fan. Having said that, I want Trubisky to become a HOFer. I truly do. I want to be proven wrong. But it just hasn't happened that often for the Bears, and when a GM has an entire draft that is questioned by the overwhelming majority of people who get paid to talk about the value of drafts, then it feels like an unnecessarily risky draft. Particularly when there were significant holes on the team and the draft was incredibly deep on the defensive side of the ball.

[Stinger226]

True regarding the teams with young franchise guys, and seemingly ageless superstars. If it's from any of those very few teams, then it's understandable if they didn't move up.

 

Otherwise, however, they should have going crazy to get the best QB in a decade on their team. Each guy gets a vote, but when you start throwing out phrases like "Best QB prospect in a decade," that should be a serious attention-getting and change minds.

there is a handful that think highly of him and probably a handful that think badly with most in between.

So the situation may not be at the point to go get him with a few that thought highly.

In the end, it what he turns out to be, not what everybody thought of him.

Since he is a Bear, Im all in on his high side.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Based on some other articles on the topic, Trubisky was #1 (on his small sample size), so that possibly changed other teams assessments of him. They had him #1, over Luck, Newton, Mariota, Winston, Carr, Wentz, not Manziel, Manuel, Bridgewater and Locker, though I am sure he was rated higher than all of them.

 

After hearing about the rookie minicamps and the struggles of Mahomes and Watson, I think we found a gem in Trubisky. Just reading thru some of the articles of the QB's and the initial impressions, most of Watson's are praising him for his "work ethic" (like saying she has a nice personality) but not comparable to the high praise Trubisky has already seen for that small timeframe. Mahomes has basically received the "work in progress" "not ready for primetime" tag. So just on that, I think Pace got it right. I wanted Watson, and was ok with him at #3, so I hope Pace proves me wrong.

 

Based "on his SMALL sample size" how could "they" rate him higher than any of the QB's that were listed? To include Manziel, Bridgewater and Locker? Trubisky only had 13 total starts and had an 8-5 record when he did. Manziel won the Heisman his Freshman year after setting all kinds of SEC and school records. In his two years as a starter at A&M he played impressively against Alabama winning one of two contests. Bridgewater was a starter for about 2 1/2 years in Louisville where in his second year as the starter led them to the Big East Championship and an overall rank of #13 at the end of the season. Although Locker wasn't really 'star-caliber' coming out of college, he was noted to of at least started for the better part of 3 1/2 years in Washington. Up until he started getting hit with the injury bug later in his collegiate career, he was setting records in the PAC 10 and Univ. of Washington. Besides the 13 game starter career, what accolades does Trubisky have to show for it? Third team all ACC.

 

With regards to the rookie mini-camps and how well Mahomes, Watson and Trubisky did comparatively to one another, I'd first like to see the 'struggles' that you mentioned about Watson. Not as interested in Mahomes as going into the draft he was said to be a project anyhow...many here compared him to Cutler. But with Watson I'm curious. From what I've seen not much has been said really that he did bad or good. All I've seen is that HC Bill O'Brien has commented that there are a lot of adjustments Watson will need to learn from college to the Pros mostly due to the fact that Clemson didn't run an NFL style offense. Same goes for Trubisky. As far as that goes though, many have considered O'Brien a QB coach by nature and would be more in tune with what's going on for a new QB learning the system whereas in Chicago you have Fox, who is an RBC defensive minded coach.

[AZ54]

Based "on his SMALL sample size" how could "they" rate him higher than any of the QB's that were listed? To include Manziel, Bridgewater and Locker? Trubisky only had 13 total starts and had an 8-5 record when he did. Manziel won the Heisman his Freshman year after setting all kinds of SEC and school records. In his two years as a starter at A&M he played impressively against Alabama winning one of two contests. Bridgewater was a starter for about 2 1/2 years in Louisville where in his second year as the starter led them to the Big East Championship and an overall rank of #13 at the end of the season. Although Locker wasn't really 'star-caliber' coming out of college, he was noted to of at least started for the better part of 3 1/2 years in Washington. Up until he started getting hit with the injury bug later in his collegiate career, he was setting records in the PAC 10 and Univ. of Washington. Besides the 13 game starter career, what accolades does Trubisky have to show for it? Third team all ACC.

 

With regards to the rookie mini-camps and how well Mahomes, Watson and Trubisky did comparatively to one another, I'd first like to see the 'struggles' that you mentioned about Watson. Not as interested in Mahomes as going into the draft he was said to be a project anyhow...many here compared him to Cutler. But with Watson I'm curious. From what I've seen not much has been said really that he did bad or good. All I've seen is that HC Bill O'Brien has commented that there are a lot of adjustments Watson will need to learn from college to the Pros mostly due to the fact that Clemson didn't run an NFL style offense. Same goes for Trubisky. As far as that goes though, many have considered O'Brien a QB coach by nature and would be more in tune with what's going on for a new QB learning the system whereas in Chicago you have Fox, who is an RBC defensive minded coach.

 

Manziel was an idiot in college and there were tons of red flags on him before the draft. The physical talent to play is there in a simple college system where he can freelance. The willingness to put the time into film study and practice were never part of his work ethic in college.

 

Locker was horribly inaccurate throughout his college career. I watched quite a few of his college games and he's a great athlete, but was never a great (or even good) passer. Add in the mental side of the NFL game and you could see the very high risk with picking him.

 

Bridgewater had limitations based on his lack of arm strength. Playing indoors in Minnesota makes him viable. Playing outdoors in places like Chicago, Cleveland, Green Bay, Buffalo less viable.

 

I watched Luck in college a lot and there's no way I'd put Trubisky ahead of him as a prospect.

 

-------

 

I was curious about Goff's performance in mini-camp last year and his reviews were glowing. Now maybe that's because it was a high school offense they were running as per Gurley. We can't get ahead of ourselves on Trubisky based on mini-camp. What we know from reporters is that he has the arm strength needed to play in Chicago. Whatever small piece of the playbook they had him learn beforehand he was able to pick it up, call the play in the huddle, and then throw to the right read. Other than that minicamp is a lot of nothing. The second part of the OTAs will give us a better indication if he's on the path to being a viable #2 QB this year.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Manziel was an idiot in college and there were tons of red flags on him before the draft. The physical talent to play is there in a simple college system where he can freelance. The willingness to put the time into film study and practice were never part of his work ethic in college.

 

Locker was horribly inaccurate throughout his college career. I watched quite a few of his college games and he's a great athlete, but was never a great (or even good) passer. Add in the mental side of the NFL game and you could see the very high risk with picking him.

 

Bridgewater had limitations based on his lack of arm strength. Playing indoors in Minnesota makes him viable. Playing outdoors in places like Chicago, Cleveland, Green Bay, Buffalo less viable.

 

I watched Luck in college a lot and there's no way I'd put Trubisky ahead of him as a prospect.

 

Aside from comparing character traits from one QB to another, you still would have a hard time saying that Trubisky is a better prospect based on only 13 games whereas these other guys had at least 2-3 years of starting time to measure. Yes I understand that Manziel is and was an idiot; but so too were (are) Winston and Michael Vick. Both of those guys still have or have had decent NFL careers so far despite themselves.

 

I was curious about Goff's performance in mini-camp last year and his reviews were glowing. Now maybe that's because it was a high school offense they were running as per Gurley. We can't get ahead of ourselves on Trubisky based on mini-camp. What we know from reporters is that he has the arm strength needed to play in Chicago. Whatever small piece of the playbook they had him learn beforehand he was able to pick it up, call the play in the huddle, and then throw to the right read. Other than that minicamp is a lot of nothing. The second part of the OTAs will give us a better indication if he's on the path to being a viable #2 QB this year.

 

Yes and double yes!

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough...

 

Here's hoping you're wrong!

 

 

 

That's why I phrased it as a what-if. If these anonymous scouts have a track record of killing it, or more specifically killing it with QB evaluation, then their comments hold significantly more value than a guy who rated a bunch of duds highly.

 

 

 

I'm an eternal pessimist. It comes with being a Chicago fan. Having said that, I want Trubisky to become a HOFer. I truly do. I want to be proven wrong. But it just hasn't happened that often for the Bears, and when a GM has an entire draft that is questioned by the overwhelming majority of people who get paid to talk about the value of drafts, then it feels like an unnecessarily risky draft. Particularly when there were significant holes on the team and the draft was incredibly deep on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[Stinger226]

Aside from comparing character traits from one QB to another, you still would have a hard time saying that Trubisky is a better prospect based on only 13 games whereas these other guys had at least 2-3 years of starting time to measure. Yes I understand that Manziel is and was an idiot; but so too were (are) Winston and Michael Vick. Both of those guys still have or have had decent NFL careers so far despite themselves.

 

 

 

Yes and double yes!

I would like your opinion on Carson Wentz? In his college career, he only had 50 more passing attempts than Tribusky and came from a small school besides.

I think he did well with a small sample size.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I would like your opinion on Carson Wentz? In his college career, he only had 50 more passing attempts than Tribusky and came from a small school besides.

I think he did well with a small sample size.

 

Thank you for reporting Adams earlier post. But yes he did have a small sample size too. Not because he couldn't beat out the starter ahead of him until his last year but more due to his having a wrist injury during his final year of eligibility and missing out on 8 games. Nevertheless he still was able to lead his team to two consecutive FCS championships (2 of 5 in a row). And compiled an overall win/loss record of 20-3. Far cry more than 8-5. It was also noted in scouting reports that Wentz came from a more NFL similar type offense in SD State thus helping make his transition that less difficult. Did Philly take a risk with Wentz? Perhaps. But hindsight being what it is; no. I hope to say the same about Trubisky. Right now we can't.

[Stinger226]

Thank you for reporting Adams earlier post. But yes he did have a small sample size too. Not because he couldn't beat out the starter ahead of him until his last year but more due to his having a wrist injury during his final year of eligibility and missing out on 8 games. Nevertheless he still was able to lead his team to two consecutive FCS championships (2 of 5 in a row). And compiled an overall win/loss record of 20-3. Far cry more than 8-5. It was also noted in scouting reports that Wentz came from a more NFL similar type offense in SD State thus helping make his transition that less difficult. Did Philly take a risk with Wentz? Perhaps. But hindsight being what it is; no. I hope to say the same about Trubisky. Right now we can't.

Wenntz played in more games but only had 50 more attempts that Mitch. Small school competition doesn't give you concern? The point im trying to make, is there is risk in any selection and we gave to wait to see how it turns out. I would say Philadelphia took a bigger risk than we just did. Inferior competition and actually paid a higher price than we did. He was not as accurate as tribusky . Time will finish the story, just trying to give you a more positive spin.

[BearFan PHX]

Wenntz played in more games but only had 50 more attempts that Mitch. Small school competition doesn't give you concern? The point im trying to make, is there is risk in any selection and we gave to wait to see how it turns out. I would say Philadelphia took a bigger risk than we just did. Inferior competition and actually paid a higher price than we did. He was not as accurate as tribusky . Time will finish the story, just trying to give you a more positive spin.

 

Correct.

 

[AZ54]

Wenntz played in more games but only had 50 more attempts that Mitch. Small school competition doesn't give you concern? The point im trying to make, is there is risk in any selection and we gave to wait to see how it turns out. I would say Philadelphia took a bigger risk than we just did. Inferior competition and actually paid a higher price than we did. He was not as accurate as tribusky . Time will finish the story, just trying to give you a more positive spin.

 

Don't forget all the big money deals Philly handed out in the offseason to Bradford and Daniels before they gave up the farm to get Wentz. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point down the road, we learn that what Philly did in 2016 sort of set-the-table for what Pace did this offseason.