Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Mitch Trubisky


Shocker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Been thinking about this as a possible option.  Before you dismiss this completely a few points...

How much better are the guys after Trevor?  Where would he he picked in this draft?

We don’t give up much to sign him...including draft picks

He was actually winning games late last season

His arm and athleticism fits our offense 

Thoughts?  Hate?

  • Pie 2
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion:

-Trubisky was very green coming into the league

-He was always going to play his best ball on his second contract due to that

-He has ~10 more college + NFL starts in his career than ROOKIE Justin Herbert last year. 

-Look at his stats over the course of last year. He’s still improving which is a good sign. 

-Chicago sold out on defense and left little in the cupboard for Trubisky on O.

-He’d be CHEAP and I’d bet a top 10-15 QB over the course of his next contract in the right situation. 

Edited by ECHornet
  • Pie 6
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ECHornet said:

My opinion:

-Trubisky was very green coming into the league

-He was always going to play his best ball on his second contract due to that

-He has ~10 more college + NFL starts in his career than ROOKIE Justin Herbert last year. 

-Look at his stats over the course of last year. He’s still improving which is a good sign. 
 

-Chicago sold out on defense and left little in the cupboard for Trubisky on O.

 

-He’d be CHEAP and I’d bet a top 10-15 QB over the course of his next contract in the right situation. 
 

 

Yes, and he is better than any QB not named Watson as an option IMO.  He is a much better option than these draft unknowns.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t hate it as a dart throw. I actually watched a ton of Bears games (because of my bets, lol) and he didn’t get a ton of help. Obviously he isn’t perfect, but, aside from a target laden (and I think partially slightly overrated) Allen Robinson, he’s had minimal help and bad situations. 
 

I’m not saying he’s perfect or the solution, but, the media and his draft situation will never give em a chance. I’d put em in that “see what ya got” category, like Minshew. 
 

Just no more Bridgewaters please (like Jimmy G).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not against it. A good plan C. If we get a Slater or Sewell at 8 to pair with Moton plus Paradis is back suddenly our line has potential.  We just sign a vet guard and draft a young one in the 3rd/4th. 2nd round pick still wide open for CB/Safety/Linebacker depending on FAs signed.... Mitch with a good line with CMC, Moore, and Robbie might be a good offense.

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...