Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 315 of 501 FirstFirst ... 215265305313314315316317325365415 ... LastLast
Results 4,711 to 4,725 of 7514
  1. #4711
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Again...thereís two camps here. I will stay in the camp giving Mitch a final year to improve dramatically mainly because I realize he had zero experience in college and should have never played year one. In year two, he had another playbook to learn and showed flashes of being above average with potentially winning his first playoff game. Going into year three people were making bets this team was going to win the super bowl and enough idiots felt Mitch could improve enough to win the MVP!!! Well we al know neither of those happened. He started out the year awful again, then got hurt, and put together an overall disappointing season.

    You highlighted in your numerous histograms his inconsistency, and Iím hoping he is able to become more consistent in his last year of his rookie deal. If he is not, we simply move on, no questions asked.

  2. #4712
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,393
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Again...thereís two camps here. I will stay in the camp giving Mitch a final year to improve dramatically mainly because I realize he had zero experience in college and should have never played year one. In year two, he had another playbook to learn and showed flashes of being above average with potentially winning his first playoff game. Going into year three people were making bets this team was going to win the super bowl and enough idiots felt Mitch could improve enough to win the MVP!!! Well we al know neither of those happened. He started out the year awful again, then got hurt, and put together an overall disappointing season.

    You highlighted in your numerous histograms his inconsistency, and Iím hoping he is able to become more consistent in his last year of his rookie deal. If he is not, we simply move on, no questions asked.
    Inconsistency might be the wrong word. Mitch is actually quite consistent. Consistently bad. Again, look at how many of those performances against actual good teams landed between 60-70 QB rating. If it weren't for those outlier performances, there'd be no case for him. 13/26 of his starts the last two years are between 60-80. He's padded his stats against really bad teams. Big whoop.

  3. #4713
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    22,520
    I also don't understand this "window" talk. Not sure what this means. Without a franchise QB, your window is essentially closed anyways. The Bears don't have that and will not get that this year. But beyond that, this defense is still relatively young and their main guys are locked up. Second, good teams and organizations don't have "windows." They consistently retool year after year. Teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs etc don't have windows. Mainly due to franchise QBs, good coaching, and a GM that is capable of adapting and retooling each season.

    The bottom line is there are no franchise QBs available. Pace is going to hopefully upgrade the OL, add some play makers, and bring in a vet QB that will compete with Mitch. Does that mean Mitch will start game 1? Not necessarily. But if he does, and the offense still ends up looking like ****, the vet QB will come in and we'll see what happens. There are no other options beyond that other than just rolling with Dalton or Keenum or whoever and not even giving Mitch a chance. That's not going to happen. Again, not sure what all the fuss is about. The Bears have limited options and will give Mitch another couple of games with hopefully two things he's never had at the same time. A good running game and play makers. But the options are going to be Mitch or guys their current teams don't give a **** about like Dalton. There's nothing to get excited about. The Bears aren't going to be relevant (in terms of SB contenders) until they find a real QB. That's common knowledge in the NFL. Look at the Chiefs. Had good teams every year. Great coaching. But it took the future GOAT to win the damned thing.

  4. #4714
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Thereís really no comparison to Mitch. I donít know if there has ever been a guy drafted with 1 year college experience and started his first year in the NFL

  5. #4715
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    Inconsistency might be the wrong word. Mitch is actually quite consistent. Consistently bad. Again, look at how many of those performances against actual good teams landed between 60-70 QB rating. If it weren't for those outlier performances, there'd be no case for him. 13/26 of his starts the last two years are between 60-80. He's padded his stats against really bad teams. Big whoop.
    Isnít that the case with almost every QB though? Bad teams and garbage time leads to a lot of misleading stats. I will say it is concerning that he has performed bad in some of these big time games, but he performed well enough in his biggest game of his career for me to overlook this and see what he does his final year starting.

  6. #4716
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by KG2TB View Post
    I also don't understand this "window" talk. Not sure what this means. Without a franchise QB, your window is essentially closed anyways. The Bears don't have that and will not get that this year. But beyond that, this defense is still relatively young and their main guys are locked up. Second, good teams and organizations don't have "windows." They consistently retool year after year. Teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs etc don't have windows. Mainly due to franchise QBs, good coaching, and a GM that is capable of adapting and retooling each season.

    The bottom line is there are no franchise QBs available. Pace is going to hopefully upgrade the OL, add some play makers, and bring in a vet QB that will compete with Mitch. Does that mean Mitch will start game 1? Not necessarily. But if he does, and the offense still ends up looking like ****, the vet QB will come in and we'll see what happens. There are no other options beyond that other than just rolling with Dalton or Keenum or whoever and not even giving Mitch a chance. That's not going to happen. Again, not sure what all the fuss is about. The Bears have limited options and will give Mitch another couple of games with hopefully two things he's never had at the same time. A good running game and play makers. But the options are going to be Mitch or guys their current teams don't give a **** about like Dalton. There's nothing to get excited about. The Bears aren't going to be relevant (in terms of SB contenders) until they find a real QB. That's common knowledge in the NFL. Look at the Chiefs. Had good teams every year. Great coaching. But it took the future GOAT to win the damned thing.
    Agree 1000%.

  7. #4717
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,393
    Quote Originally Posted by KG2TB View Post
    I also don't understand this "window" talk. Not sure what this means. Without a franchise QB, your window is essentially closed anyways. The Bears don't have that and will not get that this year. But beyond that, this defense is still relatively young and their main guys are locked up. Second, good teams and organizations don't have "windows." They consistently retool year after year. Teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs etc don't have windows. Mainly due to franchise QBs, good coaching, and a GM that is capable of adapting and retooling each season.

    The bottom line is there are no franchise QBs available. Pace is going to hopefully upgrade the OL, add some play makers, and bring in a vet QB that will compete with Mitch. Does that mean Mitch will start game 1? Not necessarily. But if he does, and the offense still ends up looking like ****, the vet QB will come in and we'll see what happens. There are no other options beyond that other than just rolling with Dalton or Keenum or whoever and not even giving Mitch a chance. That's not going to happen. Again, not sure what all the fuss is about. The Bears have limited options and will give Mitch another couple of games with hopefully two things he's never had at the same time. A good running game and play makers. But the options are going to be Mitch or guys their current teams don't give a **** about like Dalton. There's nothing to get excited about. The Bears aren't going to be relevant (in terms of SB contenders) until they find a real QB. That's common knowledge in the NFL. Look at the Chiefs. Had good teams every year. Great coaching. But it took the future GOAT to win the damned thing.
    I'll put it like this: I think the Bears could've started Chase Daniel last year and not seen a huge difference between him & Mitch. I think Dalton is better in that he's at least competent and you can probably win with a really good team around him. I don't think that's true with Mitch. I think if they can get Carr, they absolutely have a franchise guy, or at least a guy that's not gonna move around a ton in his career. He's not elite, but he's far and away better than Mitch and has been consistently above average basically his whole career.

    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Isnít that the case with almost every QB though? Bad teams and garbage time leads to a lot of misleading stats. I will say it is concerning that he has performed bad in some of these big time games, but he performed well enough in his biggest game of his career for me to overlook this and see what he does his final year starting.
    No. Not it's not. That's what the entire point was of my histogram post. Mitch's dependency on his extreme performances is so blatantly obvious when put next to the rest of the QBs I compared him to.

  8. #4718
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Using a flawed stat in QB rating as well as comparing him to quarterbacks in the prime of their careers...yeah, your work was extremely one sided in trying to prove your point. Kind of like the argument the other day about 50 yard rushers and how it would change if it was 55...

    Again, thereís two sides here. We are obviously on separate ends. If Dalton or Keenum are the QB next year, this team will not be good. Might make the playoffs because of a weak schedule, but thereís just no hope for something special...Iíll roll with Mitch and the 1% chance he drastically improves, if not, and he is as bad as everyone else thinks, well guess what, we get a top 10 pick and find our next QB. This isnít a super bowl roster, and Pace has failed doing so with a QB on a rookie deal.

  9. #4719
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    22,520
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    I'll put it like this: I think the Bears could've started Chase Daniel last year and not seen a huge difference between him & Mitch. I think Dalton is better in that he's at least competent and you can probably win with a really good team around him. I don't think that's true with Mitch. I think if they can get Carr, they absolutely have a franchise guy, or at least a guy that's not gonna move around a ton in his career. He's not elite, but he's far and away better than Mitch and has been consistently above average basically his whole career.



    No. Not it's not. That's what the entire point was of my histogram post. Mitch's dependency on his extreme performances is so blatantly obvious when put next to the rest of the QBs I compared him to.
    There's not much to really talk about then. I believe the Bears will probably get Dalton. I don't think Carr is realistic. So in the end, we'll see what's what. If Mitch ends up starting game 1, I wouldn't give him more than 3 games if the offense still sucks, bring in (presumably) Dalton and we'll test your theory out. I'll say if the Bears don't drastically improve their running game, Dalton isn't going to come in and save the day if Mitch sucks. But the offense may look slightly more competent. In the end though, it likely won't make any difference in terms of NFL relevance. Dalton is basically an older Mitch Tribusky. His first four years in the league he never had a QB rating higher than 88 and never sniffed a 2:1 TD/INT ratio. At best, he's a moderate upgrade and will be the reason the Bears get bounced in the playoffs. Neither scenario is exciting but in terms of reality, this is what we're looking at. Mitch gets a few games, if he sucks, Dalton comes in. Bears get bounced in the playoffs. 2021 is when the Bears actually have a chance to do something legitimate about their QB situation.

  10. #4720
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,393
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Using a flawed stat in QB rating as well as comparing him to quarterbacks in the prime of their careers...yeah, your work was extremely one sided in trying to prove your point. Kind of like the argument the other day about 50 yard rushers and how it would change if it was 55...

    Again, thereís two sides here. We are obviously on separate ends. If Dalton or Keenum are the QB next year, this team will not be good. Might make the playoffs because of a weak schedule, but thereís just no hope for something special...Iíll roll with Mitch and the 1% chance he drastically improves, if not, and he is as bad as everyone else thinks, well guess what, we get a top 10 pick and find our next QB. This isnít a super bowl roster, and Pace has failed doing so with a QB on a rookie deal.
    In what way is it flawed and not telling the whole story? If anything, QB rating favors Mitch, as it generally supports QBs who are more risk aversive. Basically, typically all you need to do to not have awful QB ratings are not throw interceptions. This is "sort of" a strength of Mitch's. I used the same metric for every QB completely unbiasedly in big samples, and accounted for every game they played, as opposed to only the games that show them in a positive or negative light. That other 50 yard rusher study, on the other hand, very clearly chose 50 yards because it was the only way to make the argument work. It's honestly insulting how transparent the manipulation is in that case.

    I'm not saying I think Dalton or Keenum is gonna escalate this team into division favorites or superbowl favorites, but I think they're probably better than Mitch and you have yet to show any stats or objective reason that your stance makes any sense. It seems to just be what you feel or want to be true.
    Last edited by La_bibbers; 02-29-2020 at 12:07 PM.

  11. #4721
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Switch your histograms to QBR...what happens?

  12. #4722
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    In what way is it flawed and not telling the whole story? If anything, QB rating favors Mitch, as it generally supports QBs who are more risk aversive. Basically, typically all you need to do to not have awful QB ratings are not throw interceptions. This is "sort of" a strength of Mitch's. I used the same metric for every QB completely unbiasedly in big samples, and accounted for every game they played, as opposed to only the games that show them in a positive or negative light. That other 50 yard rusher study, on the other hand, very clearly chose 50 yards because it was the only way to make the argument work. It's honestly insulting how transparent the manipulation is in that case.

    I'm not saying I think Dalton or Keenum is gonna escalate this team into division favorites or superbowl favorites, but I think they're probably better than Mitch and you have yet to show any stats or objective reason that your stance makes any sense. It seems to just be what you feel or want to be true.
    Because it puts more weight on players that throw more passes and have more TDs

  13. #4723
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,393
    Quote Originally Posted by shorvath721 View Post
    Switch your histograms to QBR...what happens?
    What am I your calculator? Do it yourself. Why is the burden on me to prove or disprove your own arguments? I spent like 4 hours on that **** yesterday.

  14. #4724
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    29,098
    Quote Originally Posted by KG2TB View Post
    Man, he is better than Rex gross man. Rex had a good stretch of 5 games. He also had one of the best OL in the league, a commitment (and great) run game, a historic ST, and defense.

    I think some are getting a little carried away because of expectations, draft position, and circumstances.
    Dude, Grossman isn't even close to the bottom of the QBs I mentioned. Grossman was actually an impactful qb for a stretch or two. Moreno, Quinn, Krenzel, that's the era that comes to mind when I think of mitch.

    Bringing up Peterman was meant to be an eagerration but it does kinda fit into my belief that Mitch has been so bad that he never should have gotten an extended look as a starter. Even being a number 2 pick.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  15. #4725
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    I'm not saying I think Dalton or Keenum is gonna escalate this team into division favorites or superbowl favorites, but I think they're probably better than Mitch and you have yet to show any stats or objective reason that your stance makes any sense. It seems to just be what you feel or want to be true.
    1 year college experience
    2017 should have never started that many games.
    2018 new coach and look at his QBR as your ďstatĒ you are looking for.
    2019 no preseason again, and got hurt helped lead to his inconsistency.

    Thatís the argument everyone who would rather see 1 last year of Mitch over Dalton or Keenum is making. On top of using the additional cap not obtaining those guys to make the team better in all the other areas needed.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •