Mitch Trubisky as a potential long term answer at QB New Off-Season Outlook - Potentially Unpopular

[Scott Pennock]

Having grown up a Bears fan until 1987 I still catch the Bears games from time to time and I have begun to think about Mitch Trubisky as a potential long term answer at QB.

 

We know some of the history, one year starter in college who had a great season. Drafted higher than he should have (above both Mahomes and Watson) and has been solid and spectacular at times in the NFL.

 

Now, with 4 years of NFL experience plus his 1 year of college he would be considered a "2nd Year" QB in this league, realistically.

 

29-21 Record with the Bears, 64% completion percentage, 64 TD's Passing & 8 TD's Rushing vs 37 INT's w/13 Fumbles Lost. He can escape the pocket and he can use his legs as a weapon from time to time. Throws a good deep ball and has touch when needed.

 

Behind our line, with a good running game to lean on, play action available and throwing to what I would consider to be a better overall set of pass catchers he could take that jump to the next level - as a poor mans Mahomes/Rogers.

 

Sign him to a 4 year deal, save our draft capital and draft a stud LT, a move TE who is also the best inline blocker coming out this year (Tommy Tremble) and a stud WR that can take the top off of a defense in the mid rounds (Jaelen Darden, Tamorrian Terry, Marqueze Stevenson) and continue to build the defense into a monster!

 

Again, not popular, but it's worth a conversation I would think!?

[CR91]

No one wants trubisky

[danlhart87]

12 minutes ago, CR91 said:

No one wants trubisky

I would be fine with Trubisky 

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I would be fine with Trubisky 

Same here

[LJpalmbeacher2]

3 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I would be fine with Trubisky 

 

 ....only because he would be cheap lol.

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, CR91 said:

No one wants trubisky

And you know this....    how?

[danlhart87]

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

 ....only because he would be cheap lol.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

22 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Having grown up a Bears fan until 1987 I  - as a poor mans Mahomes/ Rogers

 

 

 

Sign him to a 4 year deal, save our draft capital and draft a stud LT, a move TE who is also the best inline blocker coming out this year (Tommy Tremble) and a stud WR that can take the top off of a defense in the mid rounds (Jaelen Darden, Tamorrian Terry, Marqueze Stevenson) and continue to build the defense into a monster!

 

Again, not popular, but it's worth a conversation I would think!?

 

I don't think the names Mahomes and/or Roger's should ever be mentioned in the same sentence as the name Mitch Trubisky......

[stitches]

I'm OK with Trubisky as a bridge/flyer to take. I'm NOT OK with Trubisky as the presumed starter going forward. I'm not OK with giving him 4 year deal, I'm not OK not exploring draft or vet options on behalf of signing Trubisky. In fact the only situation I would be good with Trubisky for the Colts is if we draft our QB of the future in the draft and bring in Trubisky to be competition/backup for that QB.

[r a y s k i]

[MikeCurtis]

I have no idea on Trubiski

 

The Bears fans seem to be very unhappy with him, and glad he is leaving

 

IMHO, he would be a later option if the other ones dont work out.

 

He wouldnt be my first priority

 

I think Carson Wentz is headed to Indy, and we have a camp body PS QB and Wentz and Eason as 1 and 2......

 

 

 

 

 

[Shive]

I've floated the idea before as well. If we don't end up pulling the trigger on a trade for Wentz, Trubisky isn't a bad route to go. I'd give him a "prove-it" deal that's maybe 2-3 years with an option for us to cut bait after year one if things don't work out (or something in that vein).

 

The thing about Trubisky is the inexperience coming in and not having the best coach staff so far. I'm not a huge fan of Nagy and think he's been widely overrated as an offensive mind. The talent our team has, plus the coaching staff, puts him in an ideal situation to succeed.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Shive said:

I've floated the idea before as well. If we don't end up pulling the trigger on a trade for Wentz, Trubisky isn't a bad route to go. I'd give him a "prove-it" deal that's maybe 2-3 years with an option for us to cut bait after year one if things don't work out (or something in that vein).

 

The thing about Trubisky is the inexperience coming in and not having the best coach staff so far. I'm not a huge fan of Nagy and think he's been widely overrated as an offensive mind. The talent our team has, plus the coaching staff, puts him in an ideal situation to succeed.

This is how I feel 

[BeanDiasucci]

Here's an interesting post-season analysis of Trubisky, which includes a statistical comparison to Wentz and Darnold. It shows Trubisky is effective at short passes and very ineffective at intermediate and long passes.  https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2021/1/8/22213809/chicago-bears-extend-mitchell-trubisky-2021-nfl-playoffs-free-agency-data-analytics-nfl-tape-study

 

Quote

 

Trubisky struggles with stretching the field. Going 42-for-97 with three touchdowns and seven interceptions on throws 10 yards beyond the line of scrimmage is abysmal. While the level of difficulty is higher on throws beyond 20 yards, completing 16.7 percent of deep passes is simply unacceptable for a starting quarterback.

 

Naturally, a quarterback’s completion percentage will go down with the more deep shots they take, simply because deep shots are tougher throws to make. As a point of reference, Patrick Mahomes had a completion percentage of 66.3 percent from the field, but from deep he went 36.2 percent on 69 deep attempts. He did throw for 12 touchdowns and just two interceptions from deep, albeit on a much larger sample size than Trubisky. Aaron Rodgers, another MVP candidate, completed 42.3 percent of his 78 deep ball attempts with 12 touchdowns and one interception.

 

On the flip side, Sam Darnold finished with a completion percentage of 29.4 from deep, completing 10 of his 34 deep attempts for two touchdowns and two interceptions in a sample size more similar to that of Trubisky. Carson Wentz, another former No. 2 pick who saw himself get benched this year, completed 43.8 of his 48 deep-ball attempts for five touchdowns and three interceptions.

 

Next Gen Stats tallied Trubisky’s passer rating from each third of the field and from each distance, and the results weren’t pretty. Save for the region in between the hashmarks from the range of 10 to 20 yards, he was well below league-average throwing beyond 10 yards. He fell far short of the passer rating mark in the intermediate range, and the results were even worse from deep.

 

He did thrive in short-yardage situations, which the Bears did execute plenty of when he was under center. 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

I’ve stated before that I don’t hate the Trubisky idea.    I don’t see Ballard signing him for four years, but more likely 2 with maybe a 3rd year option...

 

If we woke up to the news that it’s Trubisky...  or even Darnold...   most anyone really, then I’ll be fine.   If we’re committing to someone that says Ballard and Reich are both on board.   And if they like him, whoever it is, I’ll support the choice.  I believe in our front office and coaches, so I’ll support the player. 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

I'm OK with Trubisky as a bridge/flyer to take. I'm NOT OK with Trubisky as the presumed starter going forward. I'm not OK with giving him 4 year deal, I'm not OK not exploring draft or vet options on behalf of signing Trubisky. In fact the only situation I would be good with Trubisky for the Colts is if we draft our QB of the future in the draft and bring in Trubisky to be competition/backup for that QB.

 

Same here. Prove yourself 2 year deal and we go from there. We can still give him the 3rd year option like @NewColtsFan touched upon. If you think about it and look at the success of Tannehill with the Titans - boot legs and roll outs plus using the legs when his first couple of reads are not open, leveraging the run game as much as possible and not turning the ball over, I think Trubisky can do every bit of that. So, it is not nearly as bad a move that some may make it sound like. 

[FRW]

I'd take Trubisky over an expensive oft injured Wentz. To me Wentz is Luck without the talent and way too pricey.

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, BeanDiasucci said:

Here's an interesting post-season analysis of Trubisky, which includes a statistical comparison to Wentz and Darnold. It shows Trubisky is effective at short passes and very ineffective at intermediate and long passes.  https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2021/1/8/22213809/chicago-bears-extend-mitchell-trubisky-2021-nfl-playoffs-free-agency-data-analytics-nfl-tape-study

 

 

When the run game works, he gets more effective too with his legs. He threw a dime to that WR in the playoff game vs the Saints but that WR had the worst drop I have seen in a while for a ball that went through his hands in stride. 

 

Ryan Tannehill was never effective with long passes either. The first 4 years, both Tannehill and Trubisky hit 7.0 + YPA only once. Then Tannehill took off a little better even with the Dolphins. Then came the Titans and the running game help, it led him to 2 years of 9.6 and 7.9 YPA for Tannehill. I think we can definitely help Trubisky with our run game and team support.

[BluesGirl]

14 minutes ago, FRW said:

I'd take Trubisky over an expensive oft injured Wentz. To me Wentz is Luck without the talent and way too pricey.

 

 

Whaaaaa?   Isnt Luck without talent just a smart kid?     LOL

[FRW]

Wentz has been injured every year he's been in the league. Hasn't finished a season I don't think. And don't think he was ever considered to be the sure thing Andrew was coming out of college. And has done a lot to prove he's not as talented since he's been in Philly. Last year he was benched in favor of a second round rookie.

[CR91]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

And you know this....    how?

 

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I would be fine with Trubisky 

 

You'd be more willing to start Trubisky who has gotten benched multiple times and carried by the Bears run game and or defense then starting say Eason?

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

 

You'd be more willing to start Trubisky who has gotten benched multiple times and carried by the Bears run game and or defense then starting say Eason?

I would 1,000 percent prefer ANYONE over Eason.   And anyone includes Eason.   And I really like Eason and hope he’s ready to be our backup this year. 

 

Part of the reason I asked you the question that I did, is that I couldn’t tell who you were talking about?

By, no one, did you mean no NFL team?   Or did you mean no fan here on this website?  
 

I believe in Ballard and Reich.  If they sign him as a free agent, then I’m on board.  I’m not lobbying hard for him.  I favor Wentz.  But I think Trubisky should be an option.   Where on the Colt’s priority list I have no idea?   3rd?  5th?  10?    No idea.   

 

[RollerColt]

We may have no other options. I think we're at a point to be honest where we're picking the best of the worst type of scenario. And there in lies the rub and endless debate: Who's the best option for those available. I'm preparing myself for disappointment this year, or perhaps just really lowering expectations for this team. 

[Hoose]

9 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I would 1,000 percent prefer ANYONE over Eason.   And anyone includes Eason.   And I really like Eason and hope he’s ready to be our backup this year. 

 

Part of the reason I asked you the question that I did, is that I couldn’t tell who you were talking about?

By, no one, did you mean no NFL team?   Or did you mean no fan here on this website?  
 

I believe in Ballard and Reich.  If they sign him as a free agent, then I’m on board.  I’m not lobbying hard for him.  I favor Wentz.  But I think Trubisky should be an option.   Where on the Colt’s priority list I have no idea?   3rd?  5th?  10?    No idea.   

 

I'd prefer a few others than Trubisky. But if the option is someone like Andy Dalton? No question we take a flyer with Trubisky. There are a few miles yet to travel on this QB search, and I suspect MT is a third or fourth option, at best. Lets no kid ourselves; the Colts are in a tough situation here. They are navigating through the overpricing stage right now, but they can't sit back and wait too much longer. No quality FAs are coming if the QB situation looks like a mess. The free agency free for all begins in a month. Prediction: within the next 3 weeks, the Colts will have their man. And perhaps much sooner than that. 

[CR91]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I would 1,000 percent prefer ANYONE over Eason.   And anyone includes Eason.   And I really like Eason and hope he’s ready to be our backup this year. 

 

Part of the reason I asked you the question that I did, is that I couldn’t tell who you were talking about?

By, no one, did you mean no NFL team?   Or did you mean no fan here on this website?  
 

I believe in Ballard and Reich.  If they sign him as a free agent, then I’m on board.  I’m not lobbying hard for him.  I favor Wentz.  But I think Trubisky should be an option.   Where on the Colt’s priority list I have no idea?   3rd?  5th?  10?    No idea.   

 

 

Interesting you're more fine going with a guy we know is terrible compared to someone we don't know is or is not.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Interesting you're more fine going with a guy we know is terrible compared to someone we don't know is or is not.

There are multiple reasons why...

 

One, I don’t want to ruin Eason because fans want to see him now.   
 

Two, I’m fine with whoever Ballard and Reich settle in.   If they believe in the player, then I will.   And Trubisky has some stats that say he’s as terrible as you insist he is.   
 

Third, I think this franchise, the players,  the front office,  and the coaches will make almost any QB we bring in much better.   We will get the best out of anyone we bring in, and I think that includes MT.

 

By the way,  it’s entirely possible that we don’t even like Trubisky and aren’t even considering him.  Same with Darnold and others.   It’s all a big question mark now.  

[CR91]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

There are multiple reasons why...

 

One, I don’t want to ruin Eason because fans want to see him now.   
 

Two, I’m fine with whoever Ballard and Reich settle in.   If they believe in the player, then I will.   And Trubisky has some stats that say he’s as terrible as you insist he is.   
 

Third, I think this franchise, the players,  the front office,  and the coaches will make almost any QB we bring in much better.   We will get the best out of anyone we bring in, and I think that includes MT.

 

By the way,  it’s entirely possible that we don’t even like Trubisky and aren’t even considering him.  Same with Darnold and others.   It’s all a big question mark now.  

 

I don't see how exactly we'd ruin Eason by starting him. Regardless, it's unlikely he will start, but that doesn't make Trubisky worth pursuing. That just screams desperation imo. 

[funktacious2]

Again. I'd rather have Brissett tbh

[CR91]

1 minute ago, funktacious2 said:

Again. I'd rather have Brissett tbh

 

That's worse then Trubisky.

[RollerColt]

13 minutes ago, funktacious2 said:

Again. I'd rather have Brissett tbh

There's a chance he's the starter next year. He's very much in the conversation according to Ballard's interview. I wouldn't exactly be happy about it, but I could see why they'd want to just roll with him: already knows the system, is a leader in the locker room, has experience, could help foster along Eason... 

 

The downside would be what we get on the field. If people are hoping to see an exciting playmaker next year ala Watson, Mahomes, Wilson... They'll want to watch other teams. We're going to be a run first team, and honestly that's probably for the best if we want to win games with the personnel we have. 

[CR91]

Just now, RollerColt said:

There's a chance he's the starter next year. He's very much in the conversation according to Ballard's interview. I wouldn't exactly be happy about it, but I could see why they'd want to just roll with him: already knows the system, is a leader in the locker room, has experience, could help foster along Eason... 

 

The downside would be what we get on the field. If people are hoping to see an exciting playmaker next year ala Watson, Mahomes, Wilson... They'll want to watch other teams. We're going to be a run first team, and honestly that's probably for the best if we want to win games with the personnel we have. 

 

That would make the whole Rivers signing pointless if the colts do roll with Brissett.

[Scott Pennock]

3 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

I don't think the names Mahomes and/or Roger's should ever be mentioned in the same sentence as the name Mitch Trubisky......

You're being close minded - he's not as talented obviously - but they operated in the same athletic/style spectrum.

[Scott Pennock]

36 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I don't see how exactly we'd ruin Eason by starting him. Regardless, it's unlikely he will start, but that doesn't make Trubisky worth pursuing. That just screams desperation imo. 

Screams desperation? Look at our roster at QB - WE ARE desperate! Championship caliber team with no QB to lead them. Every team and every fanbase knows we are desperate!

[Scott Pennock]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

I'm OK with Trubisky as a bridge/flyer to take. I'm NOT OK with Trubisky as the presumed starter going forward. I'm not OK with giving him 4 year deal, I'm not OK not exploring draft or vet options on behalf of signing Trubisky. In fact the only situation I would be good with Trubisky for the Colts is if we draft our QB of the future in the draft and bring in Trubisky to be competition/backup for that QB.

At which point Trubisky would outplay said rookie and he would start until the rookie outplays him everyday in practice. Which may never happen because they would be a rookie. 

 

I this QB class I see a lot of athleticism but only 1-2 actual QB's. Just my opinion of course.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

Screams desperation? Look at our roster at QB - WE ARE desperate! Championship caliber team with no QB to lead them. Every team and every fanbase knows we are desperate!

 

So because we're in the market for a QB, we go for a bad model? Car dealers must love you.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

27 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

You're being close minded - he's not as talented obviously - but they operated in the same athletic/style spectrum.

 

I'm not being close minded. I just don't see any upside to getting Trubisky,  except to keep the seat warm until a drafted rookie/ Eason replaced him. We can easily bring back Brissett for that, along with his leadership and QBsneaks. 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

 

I don't see how exactly we'd ruin Eason by starting him. Regardless, it's unlikely he will start, but that doesn't make Trubisky worth pursuing. That just screams desperation imo. 

 

If Eason, or any other quarterback is thrown in before they’re ready, they get overwhelmed and often lose confidence.  Look at guys like Darnold and Trubisky and Rosen and countless others.   All of them could have benefited with a Redshirt year as Mahomes got.

 

I’m not saying they’d be great, but they’d be better.   It’s why so many teams are open to using a so-called bridge QB for a year or so. 
 

Very few QBs are like Peyton who went 3-13 and the next year goes 13-3.   That’s the exception, not the rule. 

 

Just because you want to see Eason NOW doesn’t mean he’s ready to be seen now.  He does not appear to be ready. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

If Eason, or any other quarterback is thrown in before they’re ready, they get overwhelmed and often lose confidence.  Look at guys like Darnold and Trubisky and Rosen and countless others.   All of them could have benefited with a Redshirt year as Mahomes got.

 

I’m not saying they’d be great, but they’d be better.   It’s why so many teams are open to using a so-called bridge QB for a year or so. 
 

Very few QBs are like Peyton who went 3-13 and the next year goes 13-3.   That’s the exception, not the rule. 

 

Just because you want to see Eason NOW doesn’t mean he’s ready to be seen now.  He does not appear to be ready. 

I forgot all about Rosen lol. I thought he would be good coming out of college. Is he even on a roster now?

[RNGDShobby]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

 

That would make the whole Rivers signing pointless if the colts do roll with Brissett.

Agreed. Throwing 2020 down the toilet.
I understand there was no preseason but they really should have given Eason more attention if they knew they had to develop him.

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I forgot all about Rosen lol. I thought he would be good coming out of college. Is he even on a roster now?

Yes...   he just re-signed with San Fran.  He’s their third string looking to rebuild a flamed out career.