If you had to pick right now

[Anytime23]

Dude your the type of guy who looks at your own QB but never recognizes the lack of elite talent in the nfl.

So many players dont fit into nagys offense. Jackson looked so great. Not so much anymore. Dak looked great. Not so much yesterday. Cousins? Winston? Cam lasted 3 years. Carr? Bridgewater? RG3? Flacco 'n 4?

Seriously so many guys flash but never really sustain success..

You let your emotions cloud your judgement.

this whole post is completely nonsensical.

First off, it has absolutely nothing to do with emotion.

Secondly, what do other QBs have to do with fitting in Nagys offense? Wasn’t the question how many teams Mitch would start for? You did say “many” which for the last time, was my only issue.

There is a lack of elite talent at the QB position. That’s why the elite are called the elite. There’s few of them. They’re rare.

Give me the list of many teams that Mitch would start for. Some of you love to just discredit people’s comments about Mitch and just claim it’s emotion or lack of familiarity with the rest of the nfl. When in reality, it’s seeing a completely inaccurate and under-productive 3rd year player who’s coach needs to scale back the playbook for. Some of us have seen enough.

 

[xer0h0ur]

Again, my disagreement is saying he’d start on many teams. If people think 3-4 teams is many, more power to you.

Mitch is the #2 overall pick. There will always be a bunch of coaches who think they’re gonna be the guy to turn him into what he was drafted to be.

I mean I don't know what you're expecting. We aren't talking about a franchise quarterback being had in free agency often at all. The vast majority of the time any quarterback reaches free agency its because they have their own deficiencies. But what Chris Sojka is correctly identifying here is that a quarterback that doesn't fit one scheme and looks like shit may very well shine in another scheme. Alex Smith being the most prominent recent example of such a change renewing his career. By the way, the inverse is also true. Just because Tom Brady is Tom Brady in the Patriots' scheme doesn't mean he would also continue to be himself playing in another scheme that say asks for more athleticism out of their starting quarterback. This isn't exactly rocket science but its a fact way too many NFL fans seem to either not know or ignore.

 

[Anytime23]

Two teams for sure would be...Wash, and Miami, BUT not saying he'd remain the starter.

Washington is an interesting one for the sake of argument. On one hand Mitch as of right now is better than Haskins. But they drafted Haskins to be their QB of the future. Now that’s he’s in, he’s probably not coming out.

 

[PeterMbangala]

Saints in Chicago is too close to call. Saints at their place with all the noise, Saints would be big favourites.

Dallas, Packers, Bears, Seahawks are all pretty close I reckon.

Rams, Vikes, in next group with the 49ers given what happened last week in both their games.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

It is ridiculously hilarious how hard your trying here. The bears have yet to go a game where they haven't allowed a td. The Patriots set an nfl record. That's 100 years. They went almost five games without an offensive td, including the sb. Let's not pretend the patriots defense isn't pretty fucking good. Remember, this started because you started the patriots wouldn't be considered talented without their offense.

And that’s true. They are not a more talented unit. They might be playing better, which I don’t think is the case, or they could be better coached, but they are not more talented. We have multiple play makers at literally every level of the defense. I also never said the patriots wouldn’t be considered talented without their offense. What I did say is “Only because of the chiefs offense, patriots offense, and Saints offense could somebody make the case for any of those being the most talented roster.” Pretty big difference.

 

[SilenceS]

And that’s true. They are not a more talented unit. They might be playing better, which I don’t think is the case, or they could be better coached, but they are not more talented. We have multiple play makers at literally every level of the defense. I also never said the patriots wouldn’t be considered talented without their offense. What I did say is “Only because of the chiefs offense, patriots offense, and Saints offense could somebody make the case for any of those being the most talented roster.” Pretty big difference.

Tremendous post. Super dumb, but tremendous

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

Tremendous post. Super dumb, but tremendous

This is actually a compliment from you. Would you like to add anything of value or just take up more space?

 

[PolarBear]

1. Saints
2. Packers
3. Cowboys
4. Philadelphia
5. Chicago

 

[bamainatlanta]

Wake me up when your team has the fortitude to be down 7 starters and still dominate the Vikings in primetime. Oh, and on a short week after dominating on Monday night.

Lol. He was complaining about being 2 starters down to the Chiefs

 

[bamainatlanta]

1. Saints
2. Packers
3. Cowboys
4. Philadelphia
5. Chicago

Bears have yet to gain 300yds of offense. I think Philly handles them in a few weeks. Just too many question marks on offense.

 

[ijustposthere]

And that’s true. They are not a more talented unit. They might be playing better, which I don’t think is the case, or they could be better coached, but they are not more talented. We have multiple play makers at literally every level of the defense. I also never said the patriots wouldn’t be considered talented without their offense. What I did say is “Only because of the chiefs offense, patriots offense, and Saints offense could somebody make the case for any of those being the most talented roster.” Pretty big difference.

And, except for the chiefs, you are wrong. It feels like you are completely underestimating the impact of Khalil Mack. They could have the exact same team without Mack, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[SERE Bear]

Saints, Packers, Dallas, Rams, Bears

Saints- with Drew
Packers they beat us
Bears
Dallas
Rams

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

And, except for the chiefs, you are wrong. It feels like you are completely underestimating the impact of Khalil Mack. They could have the exact same team without Mack, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But they don’t have Khalil Mack. The bears have Khalil Mack. You can dick around with hypotheticals all you want. I guess it’s fair to say if they had Khalil Mack do we get Tom Brady then?? We would easily have the most talented roster in the NFL if that’s the case. It’s pointless.

 

[ijustposthere]

But they don’t have Khalil Mack. The bears have Khalil Mack. You can dick around with hypotheticals all you want. I guess it’s fair to say if they had Khalil Mack do we get Tom Brady then?? We would easily have the most talented roster in the NFL if that’s the case. It’s pointless.

Lol, da fuq are you talking about? The Patriots have a better secondary than the bears. The fact that they don't have Mack is what makes them all the more impressive, and it's weird you think the only talent they have is on offense.

 

[Jdgood1]

The Packers

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

Lol, da fuq are you talking about? The Patriots have a better secondary than the bears. The fact that they don't have Mack is what makes them all the more impressive, and it's weird you think the only talent they have is on offense.

You can make the argument they have a better secondary, I don’t necessarily agree with it but you can make it, but our front 7 is miles better than theirs.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Lol. He was complaining about being 2 starters down to the Chiefs

1) the Vikings are not the chiefs
2) Mitch is a bust and would not be considered a starter on any other team except the Bears. Losing him was actually an improvement.
3) The Lions were down more than 2 starters (Hand, amendola, Slay, Diggs)
4) Self inflicted players who are not injured don't count. Don't draft the idiots.

 

[ijustposthere]

You can make the argument they have a better secondary, I don’t necessarily agree with it but you can make it, but our front 7 is miles better than theirs.

Lmao, you don't even know who is in their secondary. Just admit that you were clearly wrong about the patriots so we can end this.

 

[ijustposthere]

1) the Vikings are not the chiefs
2) Mitch is a bust and would not be considered a starter on any other team except the Bears. Losing him was actually an improvement.
3) The Lions were down more than 2 starters (Hand, amendola, Slay, Diggs)
4) Self inflicted players who are not injured don't count. Don't draft the idiots.

Lmao, you weren't saying shit when the Eagles ran out their third string wrs and dbs. And players that don't play but aren't injured don't count? LMFAO

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

Lmao, you don't even know who is in their secondary. Just admit that you were clearly wrong about the patriots so we can end this.

Sure go ahead and make blatantly false statements if I name them (both Mccourty’s, Gilmore, Chung, and JC Jackson) you’ll say I googled it.