Shocking 4 weeks.
In other words you created a strawman. Whether that's because you believe I said it or are trolling, it's all you, dude.
He's part of the team. He's the most blantant part of the team who shouldn't have been sitting out any game reps he could get.
Playing bad is not the same as coming out flat.
There's that implying again. If you're reading implications into something you are creating a strawman and/or trolling. Either read and comprehend what is said or don't. If you want to discuss a different topic, even if you put the blame on some unknown entity to argue against, go for it. But when you start blaming a specific person for saying something they didn't because you imagine that's what they meant you are creating a strawman.
Go ahead and strongly disagree with yourself.
It's not whether or not Trubisky would've been any better from playing 2 more preseasons. It's the Nagy thought that young QB didn't NEED preseason, or the team around him.
Speaking of struggling to use words properly.
"Implying from statements" is different from creating a strawman argument against things not said by the opponent.
I direct quoted you and replied to that. That cannot logically be a strawman.
Also, I am
inferring from what you say... so I infer and you are the one who
implies,
Words have meaning and you are confusing subjects with antecedents.
You are the one who first mentioned Mitch and when I said extra preseason time would not have mattered much you said
I'm talking about the team here. ...... Nothing about Mitch there.
When I direct quoted you as being the first of us to bring up Mitch you now say:
He's part of the team. He's the most blantant part of the team who shouldn't have been sitting out any game reps he could get.
... huh ....
You seem defensive and are losing me as I track your statements that seem to contradict:
You said:
For 2 years with Nagy we came out flat and stayed flat for a time equal to the preseason.
When I said we always played flat in 2019 and never got any better outside of a couple games, you then say:
Playing bad is not the same as coming out flat.
What ... what does that even
mean? Seems like you are parsing definitions in order to save face.
But hey, maybe I am wrong.
It is possible that you may be more sincere in actually talking football and not looking to win "zingers" in a meaningless pissing match like a lot of others here
(those who unknowing of the meaning of irony scream at me in all caps how emo I am).
Ok, IF I am wrong, tell me please, what is the difference between "playing flat" and "playing bad" that you feel the need to create THIS much drama that you were
right when you said for 2 years, lack of preseason made the team start flat and play flat for 4 weeks ...
but yet apparently now by your own words, in 2019 the Bears offense did not stay
flat only turned into
"playing bad" for the most of the season after the first 4 weeks. What exactly is the difference?
I will not infer and argue HERE that there is no difference. I will WAIT and listen to the difference so I can see finally how the lack of preseason hurt the Bears in 2019.
I mean most people would be happy for me to say "I think it didn't matter much and their output would be the same even if the starters had 3 quarters extra last year"
and someone else like you saying "I think it did matter a lot more than you say, Outlaw".
But this is CCS.
We post like warriors of ancient times and there will be carnage and there will be no yielding until the sky bleeds red with the setting sun ... and the posts we leave will be monuments to our sacrifice and the suffering of our widows we left behind all too soon. Molon labe.