This

[jason]

If we took Aaron Rodgers at #1 overall and it took him two years before he became the player he was, I would never look back and call that an awful pick. We were going to be bad and to actually become a superbowl team we needed to invest in a QB. Whether he starts week 1 or sits the entire season, the only thing that matters to his long-term value proposition (as to whether he is a good or bad pick) is whether he actually becomes a great QB. If he does, the pick is amazing and no one gives a rip whether he started week 1 or week 1 the following year.

 

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.

[jason]

Jared Goff was the #1 pick in the NFL last year and he sat for a long time. He wasn't ready to start and if you flash forward to this year, I think there are a lot of teams who wouldn't mind having Goff.

 

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.

[adam]

This is how I feel.

http://bearswire.usatoday.com/2017/10/02/b...s-5-weeks-late/

The article is wrong, the decision to start is 7 weeks too late. Trubisky should've started Preseason Week 3.

 

I am not in the camp of letting players sit 1-2-3 years. I think that is outdated thinking or should be on a case by case basis, and definitely not used on a first round pick. You also don't sit a player behind a dud.

 

So I think the Rodgers comparison is funny. Maybe Rodgers wasn't ready back then. Guess who appeared in more games in college? Trubisky

 

Look at their Junior (final college) years, who was more pro ready:

 

Trubisky: 304-447, 68.0%, 3748 yds, 8.4Y/A, 30 TD, 6 INT, Rushing: 93-308 yds, 5 TD

Rodgers: 209-316, 66.1%, 2566 yds, 8.1Y/A, 24 TD, 8 INT, Rushing: 74-126 yds, 3 TD

 

Trubisky had more completions, attempts, yards, TDs, rushes, rushing yds, rushing TDs, a better completion %, Y/A, and less INTs.

 

So maybe Rodgers wasn't ready. Also, Rodgers turned a 13-3 team into a 6-10 team the first year he started, so maybe he needed another year, or maybe he should've started as a rookie when they went 4-12 with Favre. To me, Rodgers was going to be good whenever he played.

 

Trubisky's success or failure will not be in any way tied to if or if he didn't sit.

 

 

 

[bowlingtwig]

We are seriously arguing because trubisky didn't start week 1? Answer me 1 thing. Does it even matter if he started week 1, week 5 or even didn't play at all this yr? The majority of everyone outside of a few knew this was going to be a bad yr and that was before the rash of injuries. Would things be magically different if trubisky started right away? Probably not. If he turns into a franchise QB and takes us to the promise Land will you guys still be pissed because he didn't start the 1st 4 games his Rookie season. I'm just going to guess that you won't be. See in the end it doesn't matter at all if he started week 1 or 5. It's that simple

[BearFan PHX]

Some on this board argue that if you are the #2 pick, then you are ready to start in the NFL.

 

They say if you arent, then you shouldnt be the #2 pick.

 

This totally discounts the scenario where a player has incredible upside, but maybe only started 13 games in college.

 

You can say #2 = starter in all cases, but that's overgeneralizing, and misses the specific scenario we and Pace were in.

 

In reality, each situation is different, and it is possible that a player is worthy of the #2 pick and not ready to start immediately, this is especially true in the situation of a possible future franchise quarterback who is a green and might need some time.

 

Given also that he didnt play under center much, they didnt know at the time how long it might take for him to be comfortable receiving the snap.

 

The fact is that Trubisky is starting Monday night in large part because Glennon has been awful. Had Glennon been solid but unspectacular, Trubisky might not be starting yet, even if we had lost 3 games.

 

That Trubisky has developed faster than people thought he might is a sign that Pace made a GOOD choice, but somehow people want to twist it around.

 

I know the meatheaded football arguer type. They cling to oversimplified facts like dogma. Thank god they arent GM, theyd fire everyone after each mistake and have nothing, until they were fired themselves.

 

But boy is it tiresome to hear them lecture oversimplified ideas as if we dont understand them, when in fact, they really just reveal their limited cognitive abilities.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Some on this board argue that if you are the #2 pick, then you are ready to start in the NFL.

 

They say if you arent, then you shouldnt be the #2 pick.

 

This totally discounts the scenario where a player has incredible upside, but maybe only started 13 games in college.

 

You can say #2 = starter in all cases, but that's overgeneralizing, and misses the specific scenario we and Pace were in.

 

In reality, each situation is different, and it is possible that a player is worthy of the #2 pick and not ready to start immediately, this is especially true in the situation of a possible future franchise quarterback who is a green and might need some time.

 

Given also that he didnt play under center much, they didnt know at the time how long it might take for him to be comfortable receiving the snap.

 

The fact is that Trubisky is starting Monday night in large part because Glennon has been awful. Had Glennon been solid but unspectacular, Trubisky might not be starting yet, even if we had lost 3 games.

 

That Trubisky has developed faster than people thought he might is a sign that Pace made a GOOD choice, but somehow people want to twist it around.

 

I know the meatheaded football arguer type. They cling to oversimplified facts like dogma. Thank god they arent GM, theyd fire everyone after each mistake and have nothing, until they were fired themselves.

 

But boy is it tiresome to hear them lecture oversimplified ideas as if we dont understand them, when in fact, they really just reveal their limited cognitive abilities.

 

Says the guy who used several stanzas to write 'some think he should wait, others think he should've started immediately'. LOL

 

At the end of the day, who cares? He starts Monday.

[madlithuanian]

Seriously. The how or why at this point matters not. Tru is our future and he's debuting on MNF.

 

I AM AMPED!

 

My expectations are that the coaching staff and his team-mates give him the best scenarios to succeed. And that he shows us signs of hope. The flashes. The mobility. The pocket presence. The arm strength. The moxie.

 

TRUBISKY BUSINESS!

 

 

At the end of the day, who cares? He starts Monday.

[BearFan PHX]

Says the guy who used several stanzas to write 'some think he should wait, others think he should've started immediately'. LOL

 

At the end of the day, who cares? He starts Monday.

 

yeah cuz I laid out the scenarios that supported that conclusion.

 

Mostly Im talking about Jason here.

 

I sure hope Trubisky lights it up Monday night, but even if he starts slowly, and isn't great this year, I am excited to see the player I hope he will become.

[BearFan PHX]

Seriously. The how or why at this point matter not. Tru is our future and he's debuting on MNF.

 

I AM AMPED!

 

My expectations are that the coaching staff and his team-mates give him the best scenarios to succeed. And that he show us signs of hope. The flashes. The mobility. The pocket presence. The arm strength. The moxie.

 

TRUBISKY BUSINESS!

 

 

YES!

[Mongo3451]

Some on this board argue that if you are the #2 pick, then you are ready to start in the NFL.

 

They say if you arent, then you shouldnt be the #2 pick.

 

This totally discounts the scenario where a player has incredible upside, but maybe only started 13 games in college.

 

You can say #2 = starter in all cases, but that's overgeneralizing, and misses the specific scenario we and Pace were in.

 

In reality, each situation is different, and it is possible that a player is worthy of the #2 pick and not ready to start immediately, this is especially true in the situation of a possible future franchise quarterback who is a green and might need some time.

 

Given also that he didnt play under center much, they didnt know at the time how long it might take for him to be comfortable receiving the snap.

This part I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm a big advocate of learning and easing into things. I'm glad they waited this long, but am also glad it's time. This is the guy I wanted all along. So, for my reputations sake m, I hope he pans out.

 

[jason]

Some on this board argue that if you are the #2 pick, then you are ready to start in the NFL.

 

They say if you arent, then you shouldnt be the #2 pick.

 

This totally discounts the scenario where a player has incredible upside, but maybe only started 13 games in college.

 

You can say #2 = starter in all cases, but that's overgeneralizing, and misses the specific scenario we and Pace were in.

 

In reality, each situation is different, and it is possible that a player is worthy of the #2 pick and not ready to start immediately, this is especially true in the situation of a possible future franchise quarterback who is a green and might need some time.

 

Given also that he didnt play under center much, they didnt know at the time how long it might take for him to be comfortable receiving the snap.

 

The fact is that Trubisky is starting Monday night in large part because Glennon has been awful. Had Glennon been solid but unspectacular, Trubisky might not be starting yet, even if we had lost 3 games.

 

That Trubisky has developed faster than people thought he might is a sign that Pace made a GOOD choice, but somehow people want to twist it around.

 

I know the meatheaded football arguer type. They cling to oversimplified facts like dogma. Thank god they arent GM, theyd fire everyone after each mistake and have nothing, until they were fired themselves.

 

But boy is it tiresome to hear them lecture oversimplified ideas as if we dont understand them, when in fact, they really just reveal their limited cognitive abilities.

 

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.

[BearFan PHX]

If there was as much doubt about Trubisky as you point to, then he should not have been the #2 overall. Period.

 

And here it is in a nutshell.

 

 

You need to understand the difference between who a player can become and who they are at the moment of drafting. You're conflating the two into an oversimplified argument.

 

IF a player has a good shot to be a franchise QB in a year or two, but might need some time to develop, then you might take them high, and still give them a minute to develop.

 

Your argument is that a player like that should be taken lower. You assume that it's easy to find a franchise QB, and only one ready to go is worth taking. PAce saw a different route. If Trubisky flourishes, then Pace was right. thats all.

[Lucky Luciano]

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.

 

this linear thinking is what MAY win battles or skirmishes but not the war.

 

pace OBVIOUSLY does not have a doubt (as much as one can predict in the entire draft scenario of the NFL) that this guy has the POTENTIAL to become a franchise qb. you on the other hand want skill players who without a doubt start day one or as the media consensus pushes "the most ready to start" player. what GOOD gm's should be looking for in the draft are players who can play at the highest level for 5-10 YEARS and not just be able to play at HOF level their rookie season to appease the masses in the media or the stands that one year. it's fools gold nonsense that this franchise has done for decades.

 

cade mcnown was one of if not 'the' "most ready to start" qb when we drafted him according to the media. how did that turn out?

 

look at my post of HOF quarterbacks in this thread that were very high first round picks. every one of those listed did NOT start the entire season. in your 'scenario' we would have passed on each one of those players because they were not ready to start the opening game in their rookie season thus "not worthy" according to you.

 

finally... did you REALLY believe we could have won a superbowl this season EVEN if we started trub? seriously? you keep harping about how the bears should tank the season so we get a better draft pick next year. how does that fit into this scenario?

 

 

[lemonej]

The knock on Trubisky was that he only had 13 starts at UNC and no experience taking snaps under center. If he sat out this whole year he still would have only 13 starts and no snaps from under center next year also and the only way to rid that lack of experience is to actually play. I felt all along when he didn't start the season that this would be the game he would start and I feel confident that he is going in at the right time and should be well prepared for what the Vikings will try to do to him defensively.

[BearFan PHX]

This part I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm a big advocate of learning and easing into things. I'm glad they waited this long, but am also glad it's time. This is the guy I wanted all along. So, for my reputations sake m, I hope he pans out.

 

I agree with all of that.

[BearFan PHX]

this linear thinking is what MAY win battles or skirmishes but not the war.

 

pace OBVIOUSLY does not have a doubt (as much as one can predict in the entire draft scenario of the NFL) that this guy has the POTENTIAL to become a franchise qb. you on the other hand want skill players who without a doubt start day one or as the media consensus pushes "the most ready to start" player. what GOOD gm's should be looking for in the draft are players who can play at the highest level for 5-10 YEARS and not just be able to play at HOF level their rookie season to appease the masses in the media or the stands that one year. it's fools gold nonsense that this franchise has done for decades.

 

cade mcnown was one of if not 'the' "most ready to start" qb when we drafted him according to the media. how did that turn out?

 

look at my post of HOF quarterbacks in this thread that were very high first round picks. every one of those listed did NOT start the entire season. in your 'scenario' we would have passed on each one of those players because they were not ready to start the opening game in their rookie season thus "not worthy" according to you.

 

finally... did you REALLY believe we could have won a superbowl this season EVEN if we started trub? seriously? you keep harping about how the bears should tank the season so we get a better draft pick next year. how does that fit into this scenario?

 

Exactly. You said it better than I did.

 

[bowlingtwig]

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.

One of the main reasons he was taken 2nd overall is solely because of his position. That's just the nature of the business now days. If your QB and ppl "think" he can possibly develop into a franchise guy then your going 1st Rd almost guaranteed these days. But in the end none of this matters. Fact is that he is starting Monday. That's it. End of story

 

[jason]

And here it is in a nutshell.

 

You need to understand the difference between who a player can become and who they are at the moment of drafting. You're conflating the two into an oversimplified argument.

 

IF a player has a good shot to be a franchise QB in a year or two, but might need some time to develop, then you might take them high, and still give them a minute to develop.

 

Your argument is that a player like that should be taken lower. You assume that it's easy to find a franchise QB, and only one ready to go is worth taking. PAce saw a different route. If Trubisky flourishes, then Pace was right. thats all.

 

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.

 

this linear thinking is what MAY win battles or skirmishes but not the war.

 

pace OBVIOUSLY does not have a doubt (as much as one can predict in the entire draft scenario of the NFL) that this guy has the POTENTIAL to become a franchise qb. you on the other hand want skill players who without a doubt start day one or as the media consensus pushes "the most ready to start" player. what GOOD gm's should be looking for in the draft are players who can play at the highest level for 5-10 YEARS and not just be able to play at HOF level their rookie season to appease the masses in the media or the stands that one year. it's fools gold nonsense that this franchise has done for decades.

 

cade mcnown was one of if not 'the' "most ready to start" qb when we drafted him according to the media. how did that turn out?

 

look at my post of HOF quarterbacks in this thread that were very high first round picks. every one of those listed did NOT start the entire season. in your 'scenario' we would have passed on each one of those players because they were not ready to start the opening game in their rookie season thus "not worthy" according to you.

 

finally... did you REALLY believe we could have won a superbowl this season EVEN if we started trub? seriously? you keep harping about how the bears should tank the season so we get a better draft pick next year. how does that fit into this scenario?

 

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.

[Mongo3451]

Here's why I like slow and easy. The NFL is so much more sophisticated than college. The speed of the game, talent of players, personalities/egos on the sidelines, play calling, game management and preparation are all different. Why not let him get comfortable with the ancillary things before hitting the field. At week 5, it will be far less overwhelming and a better environment to absorb the new moment, as he has already seen and heard the show. What the feeling of earning the position? He truly knows now, that this is his team because he is truly the better man for the job. That will help with confidence and the support from the vets as they are hungry for him to succeed, knowing he is there ONLY hope. I fully support the plan that was in place. ...and for good reason.

[Lucky Luciano]

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?

 

i don't know how much more 'linear' your point of view as stated can get. A to B to C = final result.

 

A: you draft a player in a position of need who starts immediately or...

B: if that player isn't ready to start day one you pass on that player to draft another player who is touted as ready to start no matter what position he plays even if that players long term analysis says he may be an inferior player over the span of his career.

C: you then wait for the next draft, the next draft or the next draft to find that player in the position you covet who HAS to start on day one.

FINAL RESULTS: you could wait an entire decade for a player of that quality and when he shows up on the draft board unless you are picking #1 every single year you won't even get a sniff of him. welcome to the real world.

 

next: of course every player drafted will hopefully help your franchise for the next 5-10 years. i stated it. although of note, there is a huge difference between "help" and play at the highest talent level. if that long term highest quality player starts day 1 or not should be of no consequence in determinng if he should be drafted in that slot or not.

 

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.

 

you are grasping at 'straws' (not strawmen).

 

did i ever state that you did say they were right most of the time? no. but the mcnown example is a perfect analysis of your trubisky consensus "he should not have been the #2 overall. Period." because he wasn't ready at this point in time and didn't start game 1 of the regular season. by your own words and intent you would have drafted mcnown over trubisky because he was most ready to start game 1 according to the talking heads.

 

add all of this to the fact that the team hired an unknown qb who they thought could give them a quality performance and could be a valuable asset in the future while we groomed our first round pick (or not our first round pick). you never would have even given him a single start to confirm or deny his capabilities.

 

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.

 

sighhh.... now you can forecast the events and results in an alternate universe or dimension?

 

again, according to you, you would NEVER have drafted them in the first place. and IF you did for some unknown reason you would proclaim yourself to be smarter than at least 11 head coaches and their offensive coaching staffs and start them every game no matter what? am i getting that right?

 

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.

 

the key words in this sentence are "as early as possible". that does not make 'MUST be ready to start game 1' a hard rule of do or die.

 

nothing is a substitute for real game experience? does that mean practice, studying game film or watching how the game develops on the sidelines has no intrinsic value? why even have the players go to camp or practice. just throw them into a game. eventually they will learn the correct way to do things in professional sports right?

 

bumps and bruises? you mean like david carr? or our very own jay cutler (i realize he was not a rookie so don't bother) who was beaten to a bloody pulp? those kind of bumps and bruises will help him learn "lessons" and gain great experience in the nfl?

 

it's a tough enough jump into the nfl so why not give your players every advantage you can to enhance and prolong their careers?

 

 

 

[jason]

i don't know how much more 'linear' your point of view as stated can get. A to B to C = final result.

 

A: you draft a player in a position of need who starts immediately or...

B: if that player isn't ready to start day one you pass on that player to draft another player who is touted as ready to start no matter what position he plays even if that players long term analysis says he may be an inferior player over the span of his career.

C: you then wait for the next draft, the next draft or the next draft to find that player in the position you covet who HAS to start on day one.

FINAL RESULTS: you could wait an entire decade for a player of that quality and when he shows up on the draft board unless you are picking #1 every single year you won't even get a sniff of him. welcome to the real world.

 

next: of course every player drafted will hopefully help your franchise for the next 5-10 years. i stated it. although of note, there is a huge difference between "help" and play at the highest talent level. if that long term highest quality player starts day 1 or not should be of no consequence in determinng if he should be drafted in that slot or not.

 

you are grasping at 'straws' (not strawmen).

 

did i ever state that you did say they were right most of the time? no. but the mcnown example is a perfect analysis of your trubisky consensus "he should not have been the #2 overall. Period." because he wasn't ready at this point in time and didn't start game 1 of the regular season. by your own words and intent you would have drafted mcnown over trubisky because he was most ready to start game 1 according to the talking heads.

 

add all of this to the fact that the team hired an unknown qb who they thought could give them a quality performance and could be a valuable asset in the future while we groomed our first round pick (or not our first round pick). you never would have even given him a single start to confirm or deny his capabilities.

 

sighhh.... now you can forecast the events and results in an alternate universe or dimension?

 

again, according to you, you would NEVER have drafted them in the first place. and IF you did for some unknown reason you would proclaim yourself to be smarter than at least 11 head coaches and their offensive coaching staffs and start them every game no matter what? am i getting that right?

 

the key words in this sentence are "as early as possible". that does not make 'MUST be ready to start game 1' a hard rule of do or die.

 

nothing is a substitute for real game experience? does that mean practice, studying game film or watching how the game develops on the sidelines has no intrinsic value? why even have the players go to camp or practice. just throw them into a game. eventually they will learn the correct way to do things in professional sports right?

 

bumps and bruises? you mean like david carr? or our very own jay cutler (i realize he was not a rookie so don't bother) who was beaten to a bloody pulp? those kind of bumps and bruises will help him learn "lessons" and gain great experience in the nfl?

 

it's a tough enough jump into the nfl so why not give your players every advantage you can to enhance and prolong their careers?

 

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.

 

 

[BearFan PHX]

One of the main reasons he was taken 2nd overall is solely because of his position. That's just the nature of the business now days. If your QB and ppl "think" he can possibly develop into a franchise guy then your going 1st Rd almost guaranteed these days. But in the end none of this matters. Fact is that he is starting Monday. That's it. End of story

 

Precisely.

[Mongo3451]

The best part of this thread is that only one side of the debate will have any data to support the future argument. If Trubisky succeeds, they can't say with certainty, "he would have done this from day one"! While we can say, "it's because he waited"... if he fails, the pre draft haters of the pick get to rule.

[AZ54]

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.

 

By definition all potential is uncertain. Signing any player to a contract who has never played in the NFL is purely speculation about their potential, and nothing more. That speculation may be based on facts, but in some cases it may be based on hope (see Phil Emery drafts of players who were injured most of their college career).

 

There is zero evidence Pace had (or now has) that much doubt about Trubisky. His trade up for the player was not done because he had strong doubts about his future. I think the media and their reaction to our draft day trade demonstrated a tremendous amount of doubt. That doubt among the media in itself has nothing to do with Pace. I think the deal for Glennon was all about protecting his young player early in his career so that he could reach his full potential later. You have to protect a tree when it's a sapling. It is obvious Pace never thought Glennon had that much potential to be an NFL starter or he'd have never made the trade for Trubisky.

 

You have a strong draft philosophy regarding year 1 starting caliber players in the first round, especially in the top 10. You disagree with Pace's confidence in the value of the trade up for Trubisky and prefer to minimize your risk early in the draft by taking the higher certainty player. In later rounds you would draft players with more risk/potential. In most positions I agree, that makes sense. IMO there are a few positions on a roster where it takes more time to develop skills needed to perform well at the NFL level and at the top of that list is QB. How much time depends to a great extent on what they were asked to do in college.

 

Part of the problem with proving this theory (play well early)is that teams drafting any player in the top 10 are usually bereft of talent at that position. That makes it easier for them to be a "starter" in week 1. That doesn't mean they are playing at a starter's level of play.

 

Would you have drafted Urlacher with the 9th pick overall? My guess is no because that was a pure potential pick. I wasn't following the draft that closely back then but I'm doubtful I'd have supported that decision.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Urlacher#NFL_Draft

"Urlacher struggled to perform consistently in his first professional game, and lost his starting position to Rosevelt Colvin.[20] Jauron left Urlacher on the sidelines during the following week, as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers shut out the Bears, 41–0."

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The best part of this thread is that only one side of the debate will have any data to support the future argument. If Trubisky succeeds, they can't say with certainty, "he would have done this from day one"! While we can say, "it's because he waited"... if he fails, the pre draft haters of the pick get to rule.

 

For what it's worth, I was more a 'post-draft displeaser' of Trubisky. Although I made no secret I liked Watson better, The Biscuit is starting to grow on me and I really hope for him to succeed. Our team needs it.