Mitch Trubisky

[BurnNChinn]

4 hours ago, Pimpdaddy said:

Don't we already have a shttty quarterback?

Actually 3 of them.

[unicar15]

3 hours ago, BrianS said:

Said it in another thread, I'll say it here.  I think Trubisky is the next Tannehill.  Those two have eerily similar career trajectories.  People wrote them off because of their situation, instead of coldly assessing the facts.  Trubisky is 25-13 since his rookie year.  He's a 64% passer (higher since his rookie year).  He throws twice as many TD's as INT's.  Big arm.

Get him a good QB coach, and I bet he shows up as the real deal.  There's a player in there.

Tannehill is Tannehill bc of Henry....

[BrianS]

1 minute ago, unicar15 said:

Tannehill is Tannehill bc of Henry....

And likewise, Trubisky could be Tannehill because of CMC . . . as I said, I see a LOT of similarities there.

[unicar15]

2 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If I thought that Trubisky was likely to turn into Tannehill then my plan would be to sign him immediately upon the start of FA and pick the best LT or CB on the board at #8 and try to trade down if that plan didn't work out. 3800 yards with 33 TDs and 7 INTs? Yeah, sign me up for ALL of that.

I get that the numbers for Tannehill look good. They aren’t gonna look good when they have to get rid of the support system due to costs. I don’t want a Qb that needs a perfect roster to win. I want a QB that can win with any roster.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, unicar15 said:

I get that the numbers for Tannehill look good. They aren’t gonna look good when they have to get rid of the support system due to costs. I don’t want a Qb that needs a perfect roster to win. I want a QB that can win with any roster.

So you don't want Deshaun Watson?

[DeAngelo Beason]

Paired up with a young offensive mind and innovator like Joe Brady... maybe.  I wouldn't give up much for him though.

[unicar15]

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

So you don't want Deshaun Watson?

If you’re being serious the that is by far the most tone deaf comment I’ve seen on here for a while. Watson probably would have taken Derrick Henry and that cast at least to the AFCG.

[frankw]

Would rather just bite the bullet and roll the dice with the draft than throw darts at the wall hoping a teams sloppy seconds will magically look good with us. Especially guys like Darnold or Trubisky.

[Pup McBarky]

22 minutes ago, unicar15 said:

I want a QB that can win with any roster.

That guy doesn't exist. Even Brady couldn't do that in his prime. Football is a team game and requires good players spread throughout the lineup. You can get by with mediocre in some spots, but not the majority of your starters and certainly not on both lines.

[run-run-pass-punt]

Football is a complex game with many moving parts. Who is the real player? We're all defined, at least to a degree, by context, and the same is true for NFL players. No one exists in a vacuum. New scenery - new player, for better or worse. I think in the case of Trubisky, it's worth the (likely modestly priced) gamble.

Imagining that we get the best out of him along with a full complement of draft picks (who knows how many if we trade down) and another year of development under Rhule and co. is a prospect that excites me as a fan. I'd much rather go that route than get Watson (or trade up for a QB) and an empty cupboard.

[LinvilleGorge]

23 minutes ago, unicar15 said:

If you’re being serious the that is by far the most tone deaf comment I’ve seen on here for a while. Watson probably would have taken Derrick Henry and that cast at least to the AFCG.

You said win with any roster. The Texans won fewer games than we did.

[Moo Daeng]

38 minutes ago, BrianS said:

And likewise, Trubisky could be Tannehill because of CMC . . . as I said, I see a LOT of similarities there.

Finkle is Einhorn, Einhorn is Finkle!

[Davidson Deac II]

3 hours ago, Moo Daeng said:

Raise your hand if the only reason you want to give Trubisky the benefit of the but is because of where he attended college.

I think its more because of where he was drafted than anything.  He was a top five pick, and to some that means a lot.  

Personally, I wouldn't mind signing him and giving him a try, as long as the contract is cheap/not long term.  But I have a feeling some qb needy team will pay him more than we should.  Which is ironic since he is leaving a qb needy team.   

[BrianS]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You said win with any roster. The Texans won fewer games than we did.

There's a lot of truth there.  Watson is an outstanding QB who can elevate those around him.  But he can't do it alone.  There doesn't exist a QB who can.  Cam Newton came as close as anyone I've ever seen to doing it, but ultimately he couldn't do it.

I don't think you can win a SB with TB5 / Alex Smith / etc in this day and age.  I do think you can win one with Tannehill . . . and maybe Trubisky if his career goes to the same cadence as Tannehill.  I'd rather have a guy with an NFL proven 64% completion rate, 25-13 record and 2:1 TD to INT ratio over a guy coming out of college unless that guy coming out was Andrew Luck / Trevor Lawrence / Peyton Manning level.