The Mitch Sitters: what would make you change your mind?

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
We've had a number of threads on here from people that don't want to see Trubisky play against the Steelers. Their reasons vary between...

- Glennon apologists blaming the putrid receiving corps (Collins77)
- Blaming turnovers exclusively for the loss against the Bucs, despite the fact that 3 of them where on Glennon (Overrated)
- Posters worried that Trubisky will be set up to fail unless he has a much improved offense to work with (HBK)
- Posters actually saying Glennon is playing well statistically which I guess echo Glennon's "fighting to the end" comments
- We're not winning the Super Bowl/going to the playoffs/being competitive this year anyway (so we should just avoid giving the most important person in the building live reps)

My question is this. What would change these people's minds? How much worse would Glennon have to play than...

- 41 yards in the first three quarters of Atlanta
- throwing a pick six
- throwing a pick on a stick route into double coverage when he had Shaheen wide open in the flat
- multiple examples of his lack of mobility leading to sacks and one leading to a turnover
- throwing a six yard incompletion to Miller on a 4th and 10 down four scores
- being one dropped interception in the end zone away from being shut out by the god damn Bucs.

What would you need to see against the Steelers? The only thing I can think of that he hasn't done so far is run out of the back of the end zone for a safety. Would that do it?

For my part, I was down with the signing of Glennon because I thought the money was not an issue (still isn't) and if there was even a 10% chance he could be something and protect Trubisky until he's ready, I saw it as a reasonable investment. I certainly didn't come into the season wanting him to fail. But the time has come for Trubisky now. Other rookie QBs have had worse offense to run, taken their lumps and come back better.
 

Aesopian

Hooters Waitress
Joined:
Jan 6, 2015
Posts:
16,261
Liked Posts:
9,203
Location:
Jupiter
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
Mike Glennon can go 0-10 and I'd still want him as this years starter.

What would change my mind if Josh Sitton was healthy and the Bears had a WR corp that wouldn't be a joke on the College football level also a real head coach that didn't clock out years ago.

BEARS WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE WITH TRUBISKY OR NOT THIS YEAR!
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
Mike Glennon can go 0-10 and I'd still want him as this years starter.

What would change my mind if Josh Sitton was healthy and the Bears had a WR corp that wouldn't be a joke on the College football level.

BEARS WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE WITH TRUBISKY OR NOT THIS YEAR!

I'm not asking them to be competitive even. I'd just rather be uncompetitive and moving forward at QB.
 

Dragon Slayer

Formerly Hawkeye
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Mar 1, 2015
Posts:
33,020
Liked Posts:
39,600
Mike Glennon can go 0-10 and I'd still want him as this years starter.

What would change my mind if Josh Sitton was healthy and the Bears had a WR corp that wouldn't be a joke on the College football level also a real head coach that didn't clock out years ago.

BEARS WILL NOT BE COMPETITIVE WITH TRUBISKY OR NOT THIS YEAR!

That's not the point. People who want Trubisky to play already know this. We want Trubisky to play because we want him to get that experience so when next season starts and we have a more competitive team, he is ready.
 

Teddy KGB

Cultural Icon
Joined:
Apr 25, 2011
Posts:
7,801
Liked Posts:
4,579
If what Dan Bernstein said is true and Fox is fired at the end of the season, then I support keeping Mitch benched all 16 games to protect him from John Fox.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

Milky

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
3,349
Liked Posts:
3,625
I don't really see the point in starting him until Minnesota game. By then he would e sat for 4 weeks and had 10 days to prepare as the starter and practicing with the 1st team O, which incidentally is looking a lot more like the O he practiced with all summer long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
I can get on board with Minnesota as his first game. Fox has already named Glennon the starter for Steelers and then Lambeau on a short week sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Originally I wasn't high on this idea because Zimmer throws a lot of exotic looks and AA blitzes. I thought on paper it looked like the hardest defensive opponent. But it has the advantage of giving him ten days to get ready and is at home against a team we should at least be able to stay in the game against. So that's what I'd do too.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I wanted at least 2 games but preferred 4 to 8. I'm good anytime he starts but a few more games is probably better for Mitchell, not so much for the team which has a better chance to win with him playing.
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
That's not the point. People who want Trubisky to play already know this. We want Trubisky to play because we want him to get that experience so when next season starts and we have a more competitive team, he is ready.

Exactly.

Year 1: Trubisky's not ready to play. He won't make the Bears better this year anyway.
Year 2: Trubisky didn't play year 1, so now you still don't know if he can play. And he's still inexperienced so he won't make the Bears better.
 

circusboy666

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 10, 2013
Posts:
1,076
Liked Posts:
698
I would need to be convinced it would be beneficial.
OL banged up
NO WR's
Probably new coach and system next year....

Let him sit...our luck he would get a serious injury
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
I would need to be convinced it would be beneficial.
OL banged up
NO WR's
Probably new coach and system next year....

Let him sit...our luck he would get a serious injury

New coach/system isn't an argument for sitting him. You do know that he's learning the offense whether he's on the field or not, right?
 

Sparks500

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 28, 2014
Posts:
2,476
Liked Posts:
2,176
If you're a football player, or run a football team, and you're worried about injuries, find another fuckin' business...
 

Dragon Slayer

Formerly Hawkeye
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Mar 1, 2015
Posts:
33,020
Liked Posts:
39,600
Exactly.

Year 1: Trubisky's not ready to play. He won't make the Bears better this year anyway.
Year 2: Trubisky didn't play year 1, so now you still don't know if he can play. And he's still inexperienced so he won't make the Bears better.

Exactly, it's not rocket science. Look at Goff, Wentz and Siemian, at times last year they all looked pretty bad and through two games this season, I'd say they all look much improved.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
I would need to be convinced it would be beneficial.
OL banged up
NO WR's
Probably new coach and system next year....

Let him sit...our luck he would get a serious injury

Vikings game is exactly three weeks away with Trubisky training with the 1s for half that time if the switch is made after the blow out, multiple check down loss to the Packers on national TV.

I'd say that gives him enough preparation to not shit the bed, the rest will be up to him.

The OL is a concern and has been to me ever since Kush went down. But it's not terrible and we may have a fit Sitton Whitehair Long in there for that game. I think this is OK and certainly not a liability that would stop him playing.

The WR group is putrid I agree. They might be helped by a more mobile QB, they more likely are just flat out bad. But if he can keep the play alive for an extra second or two even the best secondary struggles to cover mediocre receivers for six, seven seconds. It is absolutely a concern and I'm not trying to minimise it but what is the alternative. Red shorting Trubisky might be the worst thing we could do.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
You, We, Us, literally have no control over it nub. It's all on Pace when Trub's gets his first action (barring injury to Glennon). Why is that difficult to comprehend?

People should stop commenting on things they have no influence over for sure. Makes sense.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,084
Liked Posts:
23,409
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Exactly, it's not rocket science. Look at Goff, Wentz and Siemian, at times last year they all looked pretty bad and through two games this season, I'd say they all look much improved.

Goff has made the biggest jump from year one. He started week 11.
Trevor didn't play his entire 1st year.
There's only a couple guys here that don't want Mitchell to play this year.
Almost everybody thinks he's already better than Glennon but that's not why he isn't playing yet.
 

bearsfan1977

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
2,912
Liked Posts:
2,989
I would much rather throw in Trubisky and go 0-16 than stay with Glennon and go 4-12. Let him take live reps where he can get acclimated to NFL game speed, going through progressions, reading defenses, etc. We have a banged up team that lacks talent. Franchise QBs get knocked down and come back fighting. If we are worried about starting him because it might shatter his confidence then Pace drafted the wrong fucking guy. Come next year, he will be much more prepared to start the season than if he sat all of this year.

Someone on here said it best: If we didn't have anyone capable behind Glennon, I would accept this season for what is is and look forward to a top-3 pick. But we have a QB who the front office thinks is a potential franchise QB sitting on the bench as a back up while Glennon rides us to a 3 or 4 win game season. That's what makes it so infuriating.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
No doubt. The Cleveland Bears forum would have literally zero posts were it not for the yearly fire coach , QB sucks threads,amirite brah?

I could certainly cope with a Overrated-less internet. Journalism not so much.
 

Top