Jump to content

Bears decline 5th year option on Trubisky


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:


Unfortunately, if Trubisky was there at 10

I think we would have taken him. I think he was the guy McDermott liked and when he was taken, he punted on quarterback. They worked him out a bunch of times and even had Terry Pegula fly down to chapel hill to meet him. I think Mitch was their guy. So the negative posts quota would have remained the same, if not worse. 

Seems like the Bills were not going to take a QB that year. They wanted a full year to scout QBs with their FO, not draft one tied to whaley
 

Tbh the Bears could have talked to anyone associated with college football and they would have told them that Deshaun Watson was a much better bet than Trubisky. Everyone knew this. 

Mock the Bears endlessly.

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No. Veach and Reid were in love with Mahomes. From what I heard they'd have taken Watson if he had fallen down the board but the only guy they were giving up a future #1 for was Mahomes.

 

Boy I got a lot of replies to my post.  I "LOL'ed" in it.  

I posted a joke in reference to the uncountable "passed on Mahomes" posts on this board.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Fitzpatrick has to be up there.


Fitz is 37 and is on team 8, Foles is 31 and on team 6. I like Foles’ chances to surpass Fitz.

Edited by Bangarang
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bangarang said:


Fitz is 37 and is on team 8, Foles is 31 and on team 6. I like Foles’ chances to surpass Fitz.

 

  1. Philadelphia Eagles
  2. St Louis Rams
  3. Kansas City (not state) Chiefs
  4. Philadelphia Eagles (again)
  5. Jacksonville Jaguars
  6. Chicago Bears

Yes 6 but same team twice.  Only 5 teams.  Exaggeration makes argument less valid.

 

Year Tm
2012 PHI
2013* PHI
2014 PHI
2015 STL
2016 KAN
2017 PHI
2018 PHI
2019 JAX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

  1. Philadelphia Eagles
  2. St Louis Rams
  3. Kansas City (not state) Chiefs
  4. Philadelphia Eagles (again)
  5. Jacksonville Jaguars
  6. Chicago Bears

Yes 6 but same team twice.  Only 5 teams.  Exaggeration makes argument less valid.

 

Year Tm
   
2012 PHI
2013* PHI
2014 PHI
2015 STL
2016 KAN
2017 PHI
2018 PHI
2019 JAX


Oh goodness, egg all over my face. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I disagree completely. If the Bears thought he could still be their franchise QB they 100% pick up the option. There is a possibility that he turns things around and ends up signing an extension but it doesn’t appear likely that he will even play. 

 

1 hour ago, Bangarang said:


He’s done in Chicago. They’re going to move on.

I agree with both of you.  Just saying that his 5th year option really doesn’t provide much value over the franchise tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Seems like the Bills were not going to take a QB that year. They wanted a full year to scout QBs with their FO, not draft one tied to whaley
 

Tbh the Bears could have talked to anyone associated with college football and they would have told them that Deshaun Watson was a much better bet than Trubisky. Everyone knew this. 

Mock the Bears endlessly.


Trubisky is the only one they did not get a chance to pass on. I agree that they likely were not going to take a qb early in 2017, but I do believe they would have taken Trubisky at 10 if he were there. I know Whaley was getting fired and all reports seemed to suggest Watson was his guy, but all signs pointed to the Bills (McDermott) loving Mitch. I mean we will never know the truth, But McDermott would have had a good grip on Trubisky having been from Carolina. 
 

To your second point, I think, at least the top ten, all agreed that Mitch was the best. A bunch of teams who needed QBs passed on Mahomes and Watson. Obviously everyone was pretty much wrong accept for the Chiefs and Texans, but the Bears would have been mocked if they picked either of those guys at 2 at the time. Obviously, we should all mock the Bears now, but I have to say I do feel a bit bad for them. Not a lot, just a little bit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Billl said:

 

I agree with both of you.  Just saying that his 5th year option really doesn’t provide much value over the franchise tag.

Top 10 picks have a higher 5th year option cost. It’s the 2020 QB transition tag amount 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I don’t think Trubisky is done for good but he’s done in Chicago. He was really raw coming out of college and things just seemed to get off on the wrong foot from the beginning. He was booed at the Bulls game the night after he was drafted.


They have NEVER had a real quarterback.  I mean maybe Sid Luckman 70 years ago.  In the modern era they’ve never had one.  It’s an incredible run unrivaled in any sport - I’m struggling to think of a second-place organization for longest-running tenure without a great player in a key position.  Maybe the Knicks and Center?  Ewing was very good but never got them over the hump.

 

Anyway, the Bears...

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I've wondered IF the Bears picked Mahomes would KC have moved up for Trubisky?

That would change a lot of posts on this board!  LOL.

And Pegula supposedly wanted Trubisky...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:


They have NEVER had a real quarterback.  I mean maybe Sid Luckman 70 years ago.  In the modern era they’ve never had one.  It’s an incredible run unrivaled in any sport - I’m struggling to think of a second-place organization for longest-running tenure without a great player in a key position.  Maybe the Knicks and Center?  Ewing was very good but never got them over the hump.

 

Anyway, the Bears...

You wouldn't consider Jim McMahon a real quarterback?  I'm not being a smartass just asking a sincere question.  That Bears era was before my time so I'm curious.  I know he wasn't elite by any means but I always thought he was considered a legit starting quarterback in the NFL.  And yes I'm completely aware it was the Bears defense that carried the team then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes an average talent gets into a situation where other players make him look better than he is.

 

Sometimes a good talent gets into a situation where the scheme or the coaches or the other players are a bad fit.  (Ref: Rosen, Josh, over and over) Fortunately for these guys, they have a lot of money in the bank.

5 minutes ago, BillsPride12 said:

You wouldn't consider Jim McMahon a real quarterback?  I'm not being a smartass just asking a sincere question.  That Bears era was before my time so I'm curious.  I know he wasn't elite by any means but I always thought he was considered a legit starting quarterback in the NFL.  And yes I'm completely aware it was the Bears defense that carried the team then.

McMahon was very good, but not elite.  The 85 Bears defense was the best in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Utah John said:

Sometimes an average talent gets into a situation where other players make him look better than he is.

 

Sometimes a good talent gets into a situation where the scheme or the coaches or the other players are a bad fit.  (Ref: Rosen, Josh, over and over) Fortunately for these guys, they have a lot of money in the bank.

McMahon was very good, but not elite.  The 85 Bears defense was the best in history.

That's how I've always perceived McMahon.  So I'm not sure I would agree with the other guys statement that the Bears have NEVER had a real quarterback.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...