FUCK, I wish his mouth wasn't blocked. That's the kind of stuff I wanna see. Ah, I thought you just liked what I said SO MUCH that you wanted to just re-post it
I heard this on the podcast this morning as well and agree completely. This is where I'm at now. Of course I'm rooting for him and hoping he proves me and millions of other Bears fans wrong. But I'm not going to pretend that things shouldn't be better, perhaps Super Bowl trophy better, because I'm a fan and that's what fans do. You don't want to hear me or others bitching about it then ignore our posts.
How many head coaches have to tell this to their starting QBs in game? Maybe it happens more than I'd assume. Good for Nagy. Good also that the wokescolds don't watch football otherwise Nagy would be getting skewered by them on social media for perpetuating archaic and harmful misogynistic stereotypes about what a man should be.
This should get no argument. I just rewatched, and I want to stress the he was fine, because he did have some great throws. When he's got time and doesn't need to go through his progressions, he can deliver a ball. But plenty of times when he was rushed or felt pressure, he'd throw a duck. The int he mentioned in the presser I guess that he thought the route would be a back shoulder throw than a fade, yet he tosses that ball way the fuck up in the air, so it looks like a failed fade to anyone watching, and is also what A Rob ran. Worse, he had said he predetermined he would go there, even though Gabriel was cutting across the middle and probably would have gotten the TD on an easier throw that he made many times that night. And because it hasn't been said enough (it's been said lots, but that's not enough). This defense line is a pure joy to watch. Mack upset about not recovering the ball on his first sack. The fumble recovery called back on that nonsense hands to the face. This really was a dominating performance and fun to rewatch, I recommend.
Oh that's right you're out of market too, aren't you in DC? That had to be fun yesterday. Any other podcasts you'd recommend, right now I just hit Waddle and Silvy on Mon or Tues but wouldn't mind a Bears specific one.
At this point, he's playing well below mine. I'm not going to rehash all the other observations which are spot-on, but he does seem slow in pulling the trigger on throws. He doesn't seem to anticipate very well, and that extra processing time on these throws leaves more contested catches.
^This. Also, bickering about Mitch being the wrong guy is kinda academic and revisionist history at this point. Going into week 4 of the season, we aren't getting Chase Daniel (without an injury), and nobody knew Patrick Mahomes would be video game stupid good in 2019. Yes, I still want to draft a QB next year. Mitch should not have a comfy spot at all regardless of what happens this year. I agree with another post Rob had earlier (paraphrasing) that if you look at that in a vacuum, anything Mitch does good or bad is a negative when you look at where he got drafted compared to Mahomes and Watson. How do I know? Because some of you guys are shitting on a QB who went 25/31 with 3 TD passes, and really only had one incredibly stupid throw (the INT) against the skins in a WIN. Aren't we supposed to be cheering that Mitch from week 1 to week 3 has made improvements? Or are we going to look at a guy in KC who NOBODY predicted would be this stupid good and then hold Mitch to that level? If y'all want that headache/stress, all yours......IMO--you have Mitch for 2019 season and he isn't going anywhere so putting what you have into the best position to succeed is paramount, and a testament to Nagy's ability to lead a team. I also think some of y'all have forgotten Trent Dilfer won a superbowl. Don't tell me Mitch cant "get there." You're allowed to say 'Mitch had a good game overall,' which he did against the Redskins. In fact, I like him better of the QB match up upcoming between Kirk Cousins--who the Vikings have been smart enough to not put the ball in his hands because of their exceptional running game. Mitch isn't perfect, but he turns the ball over way less than Kirk Cousins under the spotlight. I'd love a Mongo's 'things to watch' because Cook and that rookie RB the Vikings have have to be priority #1 for Pagano this Sunday. Make Kevan Stefanski use Kirk Cousins to beat you, and I firmly believe the bears can win this game. Then they'd be 3-1 with a division win, meaning the Vikes lost--I dont see the Loins beating the Chefs, but I can see the packers smoking the eagles. In this scenario you jump from 4th to 2nd. Maybe then y'all will walk back from the cliff and the revisionist history nonsense would end.
Yeah I'm in DC. Skins fans are pretty down on their team so there wasn't a lot of smack talk leading up to the game. Thought about going to the game as tickets were so cheap but then I remembered what a pain in the ass it is to get to FedEx field and the late start time. I don't listen to any Bears podcasts, only Waddle and Silvy after game days or leading up to a game. I get my Bears fix mainly from here. 17 of those 25 completions were within 5 yards of the LOS. We're shitting on him because his total body of work is not impressive and because he's yet to have a real good game against a quality opponent. Totally different era. You're smart enough to know this Patg. In those days passing offenses were far more traditional and simplified, teams leaned heavily on the run, and all that was needed was a game manager if the defense and coaching were strong. Tom Brady proved that the very next year with his game manager Super Bowl 36 win over the Rams. I will continue to lament Pace's pick, not just missing Mahomes but also thinking Trubs was better than Watson and compounding the mistake by trading up. If you're tired of hearing me bitch about it now then you may as well put me and others on ignore because unless Mitch really turns it around it's going to keep coming up and not only by me.
This is such a half-assed response. You harp on Mitch when he cant throw downfield, you harp on him for overthrowing guys, you harp on him for being a 1 read only guy, you harp on him for missing reads, now you harp on him for going 17 of his 25 completions within 5 yards of the LOS. Mitch followed the game plan and executed it and the bears won. So you harp on him for it. Got it. Minus putting up Patrick Mahomes numbers, is there anything he can do right for you? I'd suggest finding a cure for cancer but you'd probably bitch about that too...... I know over a career from 1994-2007, Trent Dilfer had seven games of 3 TDs completed over 130-something starts (not including postseason). Monday was Mitch's 4th in only his 29th career start. Also, I don't buy "totally different era" for why you cant compare Dilfer to Mitch. Mitch cant limit mistakes and make throws to be good enough just to win? Last year we said if not for Barfey, this team had a bee-line for the superbowl where we all agreed New England--even in victory didn't look that special. Now about to go into week 4 of the following season with a winning record, you'd think the sky is falling. What hasn't changed in the 1990s, to the early 2000s, to the 2010s, and about to happen again in the 2020s is the finite amount of league talent at the QB position. There's always been a handful of elite talents followed by the rest. That's compounded now, because back ups are getting stupid money. Nick Foles was garbage until his 2nd stint in Philly where he won a superbowl then got paid 22 mil per year. The bears can win with a guy who's part of "the rest." This team doesn't need Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes, or whomever else you consider to be a top 5 QB to win a superbowl. Different schemes from the late 90s/early 2000s don't change that. At least for me it doesn't. I can't speak to the others with their personal expectations. And I will continue to point out nobody predicted what's happening now in April of 2017, so it makes zero sense now to say "coulda, woulda, shoulda." I'm not trying to say everything's been a bouquet of roses, but the stupid, unnecessary negativity, especially over a win baffles me. You're allowed to be objective on Mitch, point out the bad/areas of necessary improvement, while still commending him for the good. But you've painted yourself into a corner now where either you cant or you wont acknowledge that he did something right. I can't help you with that because you've already made up your mind. Feel free to continue the negativity. And I don't ignore people who talk football, even if we agree to disagree.
A game plan that was scaled back to Mitch's limited capabilities. Is that the game plan you are referring to?
......but it worked and was successful. And again, now isn't the time where you can just disregard Mitch like trash and take the "next man up." This isn't baseball where you hook a shaky pitcher for the next guy and then send the kid down to AAA to fix his issues. You're just complaining to complain about what wasn't a perfect game or that Mitch isn't doing what someone else in an entirely different position is doing because Mitch was drafted 2nd and not 10th. If y'all just want to keep seeing the bad and only the bad, you can't call yourself objective about the good, which there clearly was in a victory over the Redskins.
It's not half-assed response, it's pointing out a fact about his stats from Monday, mainly to make the case against you and others that Monday wasn't a "great" game for him. The overall criticism from me is more directed at his full body of work, which you know hasn't been good. I will always acknowledge Mitch or anyone making an awesome play, as he did on the long TD to Gabriel. Sky isn't falling. I'm playing the "what if" game that you and Rob selectively hate when it doesn't play into your agenda. You were willing to play it with Parkey, I'm saying we wouldn't even be talking about Parkey if Pace had drafted the right guy in the first place. Totally false and you know it and I await your post acknowledging this is wrong. You also have either difficulty reading or remembering. Go back and read Monday's game thread where I said Mitch made a great play on the TD to Gabriel. I also praised him much of last season for his improved poise and progress, like the last drive of the play off game. I always give him credit when he deserves it. Right now he deserves little.
Correct me if I'm wrong: the premise of this, and what Rob said earlier, is that we should accept that Mitch can't throw downfield, can't look to his second read, can't process information in a timely manner, and has to be hand-held by an extremely limited playbook suited to his limitations, creating 8-9 man boxes on every play (killing our running game in the process). Once we've accepted this, we can find happiness in his game managing wins, in which he executes plays specifically designed to keep him from having to do much of what an NFL QB does on any given play. Sorry, that sucks. I'm going to be happy when this team wins. I'm going to appreciate the defense, Montgomery, ARob, Gabriel... But I'm never going to accept that the most important position on this team is manned by a player that cannot meet the demands on the position at the NFL level. It doesn't mean that I will always be unhappy, but it does mean that I'm not going to pat Mitch on the back for dumping the ball immediately to his first read at the LOS. That sounds... sad. If you're good with it, then enjoy. This highlights EXACTLY why the different times in which these QB's played matters. Come on, man - any objective observer knows that the game has changed to favor teams that pass effectively. 1. A field goal was only necessary because our offense couldn't manage to score more than one TD, despite having the best defense in the league. 2. I do not believe that this team was a kicker away from winning a Super Bowl. But I do believe we were an average QB away from winning the SuperBowl, and I think the same thing now. 3. Trubisky has looked bad. It's a worthwhile argument to say that he's looked worse than last year. We're all hoping he gets better as the year goes on, but... we all expected him to get better between last year and this year. And that's the problem. The expectation was that we wouldn't have to have a historically good defense and a better kicker than last year - we'd have a better QB than last year. But, fuck - Trubs has proven that he's not capable of doing the things you need a winning NFL QB to do. 4. Here are the winning SuperBowl QB's in the last twenty years: Tom Brady, Nick Foles, Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Ei Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger... Brad Johnson (2002) and Trent Dilfer (2000). Now, those latter two had historic defenses, and they were almost 20 years ago. Fun stuff: the SuperBowl winning QB's in the ten years previous to that? Kurt Warner, John Elway, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, and Steve Young. Now there, are a lot of conclusions to be drawn here. One is that, in almost 30 years, only two QB's have won SuperBowls without being league-leading talents. The other is that it's been almost 20 years since they did it. And those two did it with historic defenses - the TB defense scoring 21 points in that game alone, for example. This defense was as good as you can expect a defense to be, last year. If Mitch isn't better this year, why should we expect a different result from last year? Again, back to my point about being satisfied - I am not satisfied with the same end to this year as last, and that's where it looks like we're headed. I just think we disagree, here. In today's NFL, you do need a top QB to win. I think this team could win with "average". Problem is, Trubisky is below average.
What I'm getting from Rob and Patg's posts is that we as Bears fans should be lowering our standards for what we expect a QB to look like in 2019. We should be thrilled Mitch > Trent Dilfer since that is the bar and obviously our defense is the 2000 Ravens playing against 2000-era offenses. And if we don't see this it's cuz we're just so damn negative and can't remove the blinders. Apparently it is too much to ask for a QB that can throw for 30 TDs (Bears only team in history where this hasn't happened) and 4000 yards (Bears also only team in history where this hasn't happened) and play well for 4 quarters against a quality opponent once in a while (Trubisky's never done it). The good thing for all of us is that he has 13 games to completely change the narrative about himself and prove me and the rest of the doubters wrong. Starting on Sunday!
I just want to start by saying thanks rob and pat for disagreeing, far too often we end up on the same page with not much to say. And honestly we're probably not all that far apart anyway. Whoa now, lets not revisionist this EXACT thread. Rob said he had a GREAT game. I agree with good (after all I said fine), but this was not a great game. He did what was asked of him, but also got bailed out by some great catches at times, missed some open guys (though admittedly on rewatch, there were less of these than I remembered). I would too, and the Bears D line has been exceptional against the run, so I think this is going to once again amount to what our Offense can do against the Vikings D. The raiders couldn't do much of anything, but they are the raiders. I kind of see where you're going here as plenty of people are comparing him to Mahomes, and even Mongo's original post said he wanted to trade down for Mahomes, but was fine with either Watson or Trubisky. The fact is Trubs was one of the 3 in the discussion regularly. But I'm not walking back from the cliff until Trubs starts showing me he's taking steps, and yes, he took one against the worst defense in the NFL, lets see how he does against the Vikes. He did not show up for the Packers or Broncos. I agree, but the defense then needs to be flawless. Take Mitch's interception, the defense then allowed the redskins to go the length of the field. We could play the what if game all day on the situation, would the defense have stiffened if it mattered at that point, etc. Prior to the redskins (again, worst D in the league) Mitch was one of the worst QBs in the league statistically. And there are still reasons to be concerned. I don't want it to seem like I'm not happy with the win, I sure as hell am. But I am concerned. But if we analyze this team, as we do on this board, I start thinking about this team longer term and how we look going forward. Like you mention the gameplan against the Vikes is going to have to be stop the run and make Cousins beat us. But if you analyze the Offense vs the Vikes D, is not the number one concern for you Mitch (followed closely by the Offensive Line)? The Vikings are 11th in pass D in the league, the Redskins are 20th. Tied for 6th in sack are the Vikes, Redskins 23rd. Mitch is going to be under pressure, and he's going to have to process things faster particularly with our line. They will stack the box and dare him to throw. Sounds familiar?
Separate note, the Broncos are 6th in passing D, but 32nd in sacks. Packers are 5th in passing D, but 3rd in sacks. Interesting anyway.
Pat did you think you were walking through the door marked "CCS" when you came in? Cos this kind of "wah wah you're all haters" crap doesn't fly around here, never has. All it gets you is a new one torn twice over courtesy of blang and dline. Good point. Yep, that looks like checkmate.
