Bears at Cardinals Preseason Game #2 Thread

[adam]

I don't understand how working with the 2nd and 3rd team and standing on the sidelines is better than 1st team reps and playing on Sundays. I also don't know of a metric that measures QB readiness, if there is one, I would love to see it [Place in oven for one year or until completely cooked, then remove Franchise QB from oven].

 

You can make a case for any position in this situation and be right. Trubisky can hang on the bench for a year and still suck, or he can start Game 1, struggle, and never improve. I don't think there is any magic formula out there.

 

I believe our running game and offensive line are built to support a young QB. He is not going to get wrecked on every play and should be able to learn on the fly as he builds a rapport with his receivers. It is not like Glennon has much on him there. It is hard to build that when you can't hit them.

 

Another benefit to starting him early is you will know sooner than later if he is legit, and not spend years hoping. You can move on to the next one. If he sits and ends up struggling anyway, we wasted a few years for no reason.

[jason]

I don't understand how working with the 2nd and 3rd team and standing on the sidelines is better than 1st team reps and playing on Sundays. I also don't know of a metric that measures QB readiness, if there is one, I would love to see it [Place in oven for one year or until completely cooked, then remove Franchise QB from oven].

 

You can make a case for any position in this situation and be right. Trubisky can hang on the bench for a year and still suck, or he can start Game 1, struggle, and never improve. I don't think there is any magic formula out there.

 

I believe our running game and offensive line are built to support a young QB. He is not going to get wrecked on every play and should be able to learn on the fly as he builds a rapport with his receivers. It is not like Glennon has much on him there. It is hard to build that when you can't hit them.

 

Another benefit to starting him early is you will know sooner than later if he is legit, and not spend years hoping. You can move on to the next one. If he sits and ends up struggling anyway, we wasted a few years for no reason.

 

Very good point about the line and the running game. I'll double down on that and note that the play-calling has allowed him to get outside the pocket, further limiting the beating a young QB needs to avoid in order for greater confidence moving forward.

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't understand how working with the 2nd and 3rd team and standing on the sidelines is better than 1st team reps and playing on Sundays. I also don't know of a metric that measures QB readiness, if there is one, I would love to see it [Place in oven for one year or until completely cooked, then remove Franchise QB from oven].

 

You can make a case for any position in this situation and be right. Trubisky can hang on the bench for a year and still suck, or he can start Game 1, struggle, and never improve. I don't think there is any magic formula out there.

 

I believe our running game and offensive line are built to support a young QB. He is not going to get wrecked on every play and should be able to learn on the fly as he builds a rapport with his receivers. It is not like Glennon has much on him there. It is hard to build that when you can't hit them.

 

Another benefit to starting him early is you will know sooner than later if he is legit, and not spend years hoping. You can move on to the next one. If he sits and ends up struggling anyway, we wasted a few years for no reason.

 

because this is how it was done for over 50 years before it was all the coaching pressure to win now, media hype, free agency, high rookie salaries, the cap and so forth. because it was smart. is this set in stone? absolutely not. there are plenty of exceptions but in my opinion it's a benefit to the player and the team in most instances. this was not only true on offense but defense as well. ask anyone who played under buddy ryan. it used to be a target for 3 years for a player to reach full potential.

 

even with the likes of bob avellini and vince evans as your starters, mcmahon stood on the sidelines for half a season acclimating to the nfl.

 

others?

boomer esiason sat half a season

jim hart sat a full season under coryell

roger staubach sat for 2 years

don meredith sat for 2 years

aikman sat for 1/3 season

elway sat for 1/3 season

bobby lane 1 start first season

bart starr started 1 game

favre sat for a year

len dawson sat for 2 years

montana 1 start

dan fouts started 6 games

brees sat for a year

rivers sat for 2 years

roman gabriel sat for 2/3 season

dan marino started 9 games

bob griese started 10 games

culpepper sat a year

tarkenton started 10 games

brady sat a year

bledsoe sat 1/4 year

eli manning started 7 games

ken stabler sat a year

namath started 9 games

mcnabb started 6 games

cunningham started 4 games

jaworski sat a season

rapesomberger 13 starts

bradshaw 8 starts

steve young 5 starts

theismann sat 2 years

 

[adam]

because this is how it was done for over 50 years before it was all the coaching pressure to win now, media hype, free agency, high rookie salaries, the cap and so forth. because it was smart. is this set in stone? absolutely not. there are plenty of exceptions but in my opinion it's a benefit to the player and the team in most instances. this was not only true on offense but defense as well. ask anyone who played under buddy ryan. it used to be a target for 3 years for a player to reach full potential.

"Because this is how it was done for over 50 years" sounds like Kodak or the newspaper industry. I don't know if that is even a valid argument with the complexities and variables involved in the QB position. If anything, that would almost disprove itself. That is the very reason to start Trubisky.

 

I don't think there is one defined method or process that makes a franchise QB, and there is nothing saying that any of those QB's listed would've performed any worse if they started Day 1. They just didn't have the opportunity.

 

Also, how many of those guys clearly beat out the incumbent or "anointed" starter in the preseason before being relegated to the clipboard for up to 2 years? "Sorry Russell Wilson, you have looked way better than Matt Flynn in the preseason, so the logical thing is to start Matt Flynn for your rookie year", not stated by Seattle GM.

 

Lastly, do you actually believe a coach would deem a player "not ready" who outplays the older player, but somehow that older player performs worse, but is "ready".

 

I just don't know how live game action would make a QB worse or degrade his learning. He gets immediate feedback from the sidelines and can watch tape on what he experienced. Also, is Glennon the appropriate role model for Trubisky to watch? When they break down the tape of the Atlanta game, wouldn't it be more productive for Trubisky to see himself and know what he did and why he did it versus seeing Glennon, who could react differently (and wrong) which would further confuse Trubisky on the play? It seems like you are adding an extra variable into the process that doesn't need to be there.

 

Now I understand there are other factors involved in the process that play a part in this (salary, etc), so it is not a cut and dry decision.

 

At the end of the day, the best players need to be on the field, regardless of experience.

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

"Because this is how it was done for over 50 years" sounds like Kodak or the newspaper industry. I don't know if that is even a valid argument with the complexities and variables involved in the QB position. If anything, that would almost disprove itself. That is the very reason to start Trubisky.

 

what does "Kodak" have to do with anything relating to football in any possible way? the grooming of draft picks over the last fifty years was accounted for and practiced extensively by nearly if not ALL franchises. the only difference between now and then is the pressure on management (the i want it NOW syndrome from fans and the media) and the fact that the time frames for player development have changed since the addition of more teams in the nfl, free agency and the cap.

 

the "complexities and variables involved in the QB position" is EXACTLY the reason to let the most important player on your entire team become adjusted to the speed and complex defensive schemes in REAL games where it counts. he can learn on the sidelines or in the film room. we DO NOT NEED to start him early because this is the hump year to turn the corner for our future. it's a thousand to one shot we win a superbowl this season so why push it?

 

I don't think there is one defined method or process that makes a franchise QB, and there is nothing saying that any of those QB's listed would've performed any worse if they started Day 1. They just didn't have the opportunity.

 

"never had the opportunity"? you can't be serious. the quarterback position has been the absolute hardest to fill since the 'modern' age of professional football started. everyone wanted the next johnny unitis since the 1950's.

 

Also, how many of those guys clearly beat out the incumbent or "anointed" starter in the preseason before being relegated to the clipboard for up to 2 years? "Sorry Russell Wilson, you have looked way better than Matt Flynn in the preseason, so the logical thing is to start Matt Flynn for your rookie year", not stated by Seattle GM.

 

who put the 2 year defining moment on qb grooming? if he sits for half a year or if it TAKES that 2 year period it's smart planning in my opinion. that said, do you really think on the practice field and pre-season games jim mccmahon couldn't "beat out" the likes of bob avellini or vince evans?? seriously?

 

Lastly, do you actually believe a coach would deem a player "not ready" who outplays the older player, but somehow that older player performs worse, but is "ready".

 

see above.

 

I just don't know how live game action would make a QB worse or degrade his learning. He gets immediate feedback from the sidelines and can watch tape on what he experienced. Also, is Glennon the appropriate role model for Trubisky to watch? When they break down the tape of the Atlanta game, wouldn't it be more productive for Trubisky to see himself and know what he did and why he did it versus seeing Glennon, who could react differently (and wrong) which would further confuse Trubisky on the play? It seems like you are adding an extra variable into the process that doesn't need to be there.

 

first... glennon has looked poor for TWO pre-season games. this is an entire new offense to him and half the offensive team. REAL games with all your starters working together is where you make your evaluations on performance. pre-season is fools gold. even experienced qb's look poor in pre-season in MANY instances and especially in this day and age. the limited ability to practice certainly is a factor.

 

next: your real game analysis is purely hypothetical or wishful thinking. payton manning is probably the most ready, smartest rookie to come together into the nfl maybe ever. he came in with a lot of college starts unlike trubinsky. his poor play and the stupid coaching gaffs in my opinion didn't help his acclimation into the nfl by learning through live fire. in my opinion if he weren't a really good and smart student of the game ball player who's father was in the nfl it could have changed the outcome of his career. who knows?

 

in any case this is a knee jerk reaction this early in the season before a single regular season snap has taken place. give it time. we HAVE it for a change.

 

[adam]

Even if you don't count Peyton, here are the recent group of QB's to start Week 1:

 

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

Matthew Stafford

Mark Sanchez

Sam Bradford

Cam Newton

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Robert Griffin III

Russell Wilson

Ryan Tannehill

Derek Carr

Jameis Winston

Marcus Mariota

Carson Wentz

 

That is a pretty solid group and I believe 13 of them are current starters. That alone throws out the theory that you need to wait or hold them out for a few weeks, year, etc. These guys came in day one and are still starters.

 

I also don't think it is a knee jerk reaction and only based on a few preseason snaps. Put the best players on the field for Week 1 based on what you know after the TEN game. This goes for all positions. I am ok if they wait, but not if Glennon is worse than Trubisky.

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Even if you don't count Peyton, here are the recent group of QB's to start Week 1:

 

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

Matthew Stafford

Mark Sanchez

Sam Bradford

Cam Newton

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Robert Griffin III

Russell Wilson

Ryan Tannehill

Derek Carr

Jameis Winston

Marcus Mariota

Carson Wentz

 

That is a pretty solid group and I believe 13 of them are current starters. That alone throws out the theory that you need to wait or hold them out for a few weeks, year, etc. These guys came in day one and are still starters.

 

I also don't think it is a knee jerk reaction and only based on a few preseason snaps. Put the best players on the field for Week 1 based on what you know after the TEN game. This goes for all positions. I am ok if they wait, but not if Glennon is worse than Trubisky.

 

most if not all of those players would have benefited with extra time for the acclimation in my opinion. many of the decisions to start rookies, especially first round picks is to get the biggest bang for the buck pressure or if the position they are filling is decimated. this holds true ESPECIALLY at the qb position. we are not in that position where the coaches or GM are engaging in the lovie syndrome.

 

your best players on the field in pre-season scenario is truly the incorrect approach. if this were a gold standard hardly any of your veteran starters, pro-bowl or not, would start in this scenario. this is PRE-SEASON. most of all the young rookies are playing in spot rolls or against the 2nd and 3rd string opponents. this also coincides with vanilla offensive schemes on both sides of the ball. it is just not a yardstick to base a cognizant opinion on.

 

[Mongo3451]

Even if you don't count Peyton, here are the recent group of QB's to start Week 1:

 

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

Matthew Stafford

Mark Sanchez

Sam Bradford

Cam Newton

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Robert Griffin III

Russell Wilson

Ryan Tannehill

Derek Carr

Jameis Winston

Marcus Mariota

Carson Wentz

 

That is a pretty solid group and I believe 13 of them are current starters. That alone throws out the theory that you need to wait or hold them out for a few weeks, year, etc. These guys came in day one and are still starters.

 

I also don't think it is a knee jerk reaction and only based on a few preseason snaps. Put the best players on the field for Week 1 based on what you know after the TEN game. This goes for all positions. I am ok if they wait, but not if Glennon is worse than Trubisky.

 

[Mongo3451]

Even if you don't count Peyton, here are the recent group of QB's to start Week 1:

 

Matt Ryan

Joe Flacco

Matthew Stafford

Mark Sanchez

Sam Bradford

Cam Newton

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Robert Griffin III

Russell Wilson

Ryan Tannehill

Derek Carr

Jameis Winston

Marcus Mariota

Carson Wentz

 

That is a pretty solid group and I believe 13 of them are current starters. That alone throws out the theory that you need to wait or hold them out for a few weeks, year, etc. These guys came in day one and are still starters.

 

I also don't think it is a knee jerk reaction and only based on a few preseason snaps. Put the best players on the field for Week 1 based on what you know after the TEN game. This goes for all positions. I am ok if they wait, but not if Glennon is worse than Trubisky.

Who's not on your list? Four Hall of Famers currently playing. Zero on your list...

[adam]

Who's not on your list? Four Hall of Famers currently playing. Zero on your list...

Sorry, you can't be in the HoF while playing. There are zero current players in the HoF.

[Mongo3451]

Sorry, you can't be in the HoF while playing. There are zero current players in the HoF.

Oops I forgot to say future. Semantics. You know all four are getting in.

[adam]

Oops I forgot to say future. Semantics. You know all four are getting in.

I get it and no objections there, however, each one had their own unique situation to deal with. Brees had Jake the Snake, Brady had Bledsoe, Rodgers had Favre, etc. If we were a franchise in that situation, it would make sense to sit Trubisky behind someone of that stature to learn from the best. What is Trubisky going to get from sitting behind Glennon? That's my point. He might as well be out there getting the actual reps because he is better than Glennon already. Will he be better in 2018 if he doesn't start a single game in 2017 or will he be better in 2018 if he starts from Day One? It is hard to imagine that he would be worse off in 2018 by having more experience.

[bowlingtwig]

There is no sure fire recipe to succeed otherwise we would have found at least a couple guys in the past 100 years yet here we are. Personally I'm ok with putting out the rookie QB right away in the game but only under very unique situations unless your forced to like Dallas was with Dak last yr. I need to know that the team has a solid OL to make sure he ain't going to get his brains beat in. 2) needs a good run game to help take as much pressure off him the best you can and 3) most importantly you need coaching staff who can ensure a good solid game plan. You don't want that rook going out and throwing the ball 50 times a game as that's a recipe for disaster.

 

Now with all that we've got it although I've got my reservations about the oline because we honestly don't know if this will be good or not because we haven't been able to stay healthy. Now because of that I would want Glennon take the 1st 4 games. If he's doing baby but the oline is doing well with the running game we do have then I'd be ok with going trubisky

[lemonej]

because this is how it was done for over 50 years before it was all the coaching pressure to win now, media hype, free agency, high rookie salaries, the cap and so forth. because it was smart. is this set in stone? absolutely not. there are plenty of exceptions but in my opinion it's a benefit to the player and the team in most instances. this was not only true on offense but defense as well. ask anyone who played under buddy ryan. it used to be a target for 3 years for a player to reach full potential.

 

even with the likes of bob avellini and vince evans as your starters, mcmahon stood on the sidelines for half a season acclimating to the nfl.

 

others?

boomer esiason sat half a season

jim hart sat a full season under coryell

roger staubach sat for 2 years

don meredith sat for 2 years

aikman sat for 1/3 season

elway sat for 1/3 season

bobby lane 1 start first season

bart starr started 1 game

favre sat for a year

len dawson sat for 2 years

montana 1 start

dan fouts started 6 games

brees sat for a year

rivers sat for 2 years

roman gabriel sat for 2/3 season

dan marino started 9 games

bob griese started 10 games

culpepper sat a year

tarkenton started 10 games

brady sat a year

bledsoe sat 1/4 year

eli manning started 7 games

ken stabler sat a year

namath started 9 games

mcnabb started 6 games

cunningham started 4 games

jaworski sat a season

rapesomberger 13 starts

bradshaw 8 starts

steve young 5 starts

theismann sat 2 years

 

I looked at your list and see you have a couple of players that played in other leagues(Theismann and Young) 1 player that was a 3rd round pick(Farve) a player that wasn't a rookie and under a new coach(Jim Hart) and another player who was involved in a bizarre decision by his coach to shuttle plays in with the quarterbacks (Staubach who also had a Navy commitment and Craig Morton to compete with) and Brees and Rivers were together and again Rivers was behind a sure HOF QB.So as I look at your list I'm trying to see what angle you are going for because you omitted names of QBs that played right away and tried to hide behind using players that played in the 60's, 70's and 80's and then threw Bobby Lane in who played for the Bears his first year behind an established starter and partied his way into getting traded to the Lions.

[Lucky Luciano]

I looked at your list and see you have a couple of players that played in other leagues(Theismann and Young) 1 player that was a 3rd round pick(Farve) a player that wasn't a rookie and under a new coach(Jim Hart) and another player who was involved in a bizarre decision by his coach to shuttle plays in with the quarterbacks (Staubach who also had a Navy commitment and Craig Morton to compete with) and Brees and Rivers were together and again Rivers was behind a sure HOF QB.So as I look at your list I'm trying to see what angle you are going for because you omitted names of QBs that played right away and tried to hide behind using players that played in the 60's, 70's and 80's and then threw Bobby Lane in who played for the Bears his first year behind an established starter and partied his way into getting traded to the Lions.

 

first of all i am not trying to "hide" anything. the point was to show 'some' quality qb's who benefited (AGAIN in my opinion) by not being thrown into the fire right out of the college ranks into NFL quality pro football. the discussion was in reference to the modern age of NFL pro ball which started in the 1950's thus the variety from that period for the qb's i selected.

 

that said, i believe that sitting on the bench and watching games play out, watching game film, seeing how the professional ranks work with the mental and physical aspects of professional football is benefitial. i just don't see how it can't be a good thing.

 

second: i realize some of these players were in different leagues. the canadian football league, the USFL and so on. i think you could include NFL europe in that scenario also.

 

the point of this is the quality of these other leagues is NOT the same as the NFL pro level. the only league that comes to mind that was close is the original AFC before the merger. these players in other leagues were in essence grooming for the move into the NFL pro ranks where the best players in the world compete. it was/almost a semi-pro invironment.

 

even then, take in mind, with that experience the qb's i mentioned did not start on day one for whatever reason. acclimation into the nfl? i would say it was a serious consideration by smart coaching staff. other reasons? sure, possibly.

 

third: i did not just use first round picks (your favre example) because to me it is a moot point. the gulf is vast between college (and semi-pro) ball and NFL quality play no matter what 'round' you were drafted in or what organizatin you were acquired from.

 

fourth: you mention hart. yes i was mistaken. coryell wasn't the coach he started out with. it was winner. does that matter? he still was not the opening day starter in 1966 and sat on the bench under winner.

 

staubach - again, he was not a starter in the first two years of his career and played behind morton. i don't get your point on this.

 

rivers - behind a sure HOF qb? brees? that is a complete misconception. brees career was just starting to shine after four years in SD. he looked very good by his fifth year and then was released after an injury and accquisation of rivers who sat behind brees for 2 years. but HOF quality at that time? no. but they WERE grooming rivers for the change.

 

at the time of his release, brees, he was a rising star that BEGGED for the idiot jerry angelo to acquire him in chicago. it was one of the biggest gafs in bear history that we could have acquired a pro-bowl quality qb for NO COMPENSATION in his prime!!!!!!

 

bobby lane - this was before my time. i never watched him play, only in highlight films. lane was similar to elway in many ways by refusing to play for the team that originally drafted him. he was acquired by halas who had two other qb's in the stable. the aging and soon to be gone luckman and johnny lujack. lane was the 3rd string qb and wanted out of chicago and was traded to the AFC bulldogs. so this in itself fits the scenario i portrayed.

 

after the bulldogs went under i assume halas still had the rights to lane and thus traded this 'malcontent' to the lions. halas chose to keep lujack who was in rights a good successor to luckman (maybe or maybe NOT the best choice) until he was injured and eventually ended his career.

 

this certainly had ramifications for the bears for years to come.

 

fifth and last: no, i did NOT include qb's who started the first game of the first year in the NFL. that was my initial point.

 

i stated that there are always exceptions but i also stated that in my opinion probably all would have benefited by sitting for a period of time to acclimate into pro NFL play. i still believe that.

[lemonej]

first of all i am not trying to "hide" anything. the point was to show 'some' quality qb's who benefited (AGAIN in my opinion) by not being thrown into the fire right out of the college ranks into NFL quality pro football. the discussion was in reference to the modern age of NFL pro ball which started in the 1950's thus the variety from that period for the qb's i selected.

 

that said, i believe that sitting on the bench and watching games play out, watching game film, seeing how the professional ranks work with the mental and physical aspects of professional football is benefitial. i just don't see how it can't be a good thing.

 

second: i realize some of these players were in different leagues. the canadian football league, the USFL and so on. i think you could include NFL europe in that scenario also.

 

the point of this is the quality of these other leagues is NOT the same as the NFL pro level. the only league that comes to mind that was close is the original AFC before the merger. these players in other leagues were in essence grooming for the move into the NFL pro ranks where the best players in the world compete. it was/almost a semi-pro invironment.

 

even then, take in mind, with that experience the qb's i mentioned did not start on day one for whatever reason. acclimation into the nfl? i would say it was a serious consideration by smart coaching staff. other reasons? sure, possibly.

 

third: i did not just use first round picks (your favre example) because to me it is a moot point. the gulf is vast between college (and semi-pro) ball and NFL quality play no matter what 'round' you were drafted in or what organizatin you were acquired from.

 

fourth: you mention hart. yes i was mistaken. coryell wasn't the coach he started out with. it was winner. does that matter? he still was not the opening day starter in 1966 and sat on the bench under winner.

 

staubach - again, he was not a starter in the first two years of his career and played behind morton. i don't get your point on this.

 

rivers - behind a sure HOF qb? brees? that is a complete misconception. brees career was just starting to shine after four years in SD. he looked very good by his fifth year and then was released after an injury and accquisation of rivers who sat behind brees for 2 years. but HOF quality at that time? no. but they WERE grooming rivers for the change.

 

at the time of his release, brees, he was a rising star that BEGGED for the idiot jerry angelo to acquire him in chicago. it was one of the biggest gafs in bear history that we could have acquired a pro-bowl quality qb for NO COMPENSATION in his prime!!!!!!

 

bobby lane - this was before my time. i never watched him play, only in highlight films. lane was similar to elway in many ways by refusing to play for the team that originally drafted him. he was acquired by halas who had two other qb's in the stable. the aging and soon to be gone luckman and johnny lujack. lane was the 3rd string qb and wanted out of chicago and was traded to the AFC bulldogs. so this in itself fits the scenario i portrayed.

 

after the bulldogs went under i assume halas still had the rights to lane and thus traded this 'malcontent' to the lions. halas chose to keep lujack who was in rights a good successor to luckman (maybe or maybe NOT the best choice) until he was injured and eventually ended his career.

 

this certainly had ramifications for the bears for years to come.

 

fifth and last: no, i did NOT include qb's who started the first game of the first year in the NFL. that was my initial point.

 

i stated that there are always exceptions but i also stated that in my opinion probably all would have benefited by sitting for a period of time to acclimate into pro NFL play. i still believe that.

 

How many guys you listed were the number 2 pick in the draft?

 

As for Staubach by him coming out of the Naval Academy he had a 5 year commitment to the Navy so why would the Cowboys start him in his rookie year?

[Lucky Luciano]

How many guys you listed were the number 2 pick in the draft?

 

As for Staubach by him coming out of the Naval Academy he had a 5 year commitment to the Navy so why would the Cowboys start him in his rookie year?

 

1. who cares? i don't care if they were a first round #1 pick or 12th round pick. that's the hype that makes no sense to me. the slots in the draft are for talent and potential supposedly. i have heard the "most ready to start" or "picked that high he has to be a starter" BS for years and years. it's a stupid way to determine when to start ANY player and ESPECIALLY a quarterback! this is a media give me a story to run with scenario or fan's howling for the #2 qb to start nonsense. it's gm or coaching desperation in many/most cases.

 

staubach - i really don't understand what you are talking about.

 

staubach was a 10th round pick that was drafted one year before his college eligibility was over. he was drafted in 1964 and served out his military commitment and became a ROOKIE player two years later in 1969.

 

in his rookie year as a player, 1969, he played in 6 games and started only ONE.