Trubisky’s stats vs Wentz through 16 games...

[Mongo_76]

Ehh... I wouldn't compare them in that way.

Trubisky's first 16 games spans over two seasons in which he had two offseasons to learn how the NFL works. Wentz's first 16 happened all in the first year.

Wentz' first 4 games of his second season were much better than Trubisky's.

Yeah, but Trubs 4th game is his second season was better than any game either played ever.

See what I did there?

 

[satchice]

To play devil’s advocate, Carson also played in a competent modern offense for all 16 games though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and also had competent NFL receivers. How are these guys doing in the league today?
– Kendall Wright
– Markus Wheaton
– Deonte Thompson
– Joshua Bellamy
– Tre McBride

 

[modo]

and also had competent NFL receivers. How are these guys doing in the league today?
– Kendall Wright
– Markus Wheaton
– Deonte Thompson
– Joshua Bellamy
– Tre McBride

Bellamy's winning......

 

[xer0h0ur]

you are missing the point of what most people are saying when they compare the stats......

It is too early to tell what his consistent ceiling will be....

If someone has declared him a bust or the next coming they are just pulling shit out of their ass. None of us have a clue where Trubisky will wind up at the end of the day.

LOL, what else did you expect from him.

 

[satchice]

More reasons why it's dumb to compare the two.

Very different situations.

Cant this be said for comparing any two Quarterbacks?

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

If they're already crowning Trubisky as being as good or better than Wentz after his first good game, then for the comparison to stick, Trubisky better play at the level Wentz did for starts 17 thru 29 (at which point Wentz got injured).

That means he needs to play at an MVP level for the remainder of the season.

Let's see if that happens, or if this nauseating homer fest of a thread ends up looking as ridiculous as you and I think it will. Windy and xero in particular have gone right off the deep end into the kool-aid pool. Thank goodness we still have rational posters like Toast, BNB, and yourself to keep things grounded.

For the record, I’m not saying Mitch is “as good or better than Wentz”. I’m saying after 16 full games they have similar stats and to be honest Mitch has the better stats in a far worse situation for the most part of the 16 games. Will Mitch be as good as Carson? Probably not Carson is a top 5 QB in my opinion. But I think Mitch can be a 7-12 kind of QB and that’s still plenty high enough to win a SB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Myk]

I'm looking beyond stats. Trubs looked absolutely awful in his first three games. His completion percentage is so high because they kept throwing sceens. Wentz looked much better.

With your FitzMagic at the podium avatar, I'm laughing my ass off. Reading your posts making up excuses for Trubisky's half against Fitz makes it look like Fitz is doing it.

 

[Myk]

LOL @ the mental gymnastics you're going through to avoid a simple truth. Bad defenses have existed since the beginning of football. Yet only a few have ever managed to pass for 6 touchdowns in a game. Never mind 5 in a half. Its not crowning his ass. Its being blown away by way they went from week 3's offense to week 4's offense and the extreme jump in his personal performance.

But, I mean, do you boo boo. Do you.

This is such a sad commentary on Bear fandom and what this franchise has done to them. We could've had Peyton Manning level QB play from day #1 and they'd still be finding reasons to slow the bandwagon down.
I'm even more convinced if we had Favre like many were pining for, "He throws too many interceptions. We can't win with that."

 

[Schmidtaki]

Ehh... I wouldn't compare them in that way.

Trubisky's first 16 games spans over two seasons in which he had two offseasons to learn how the NFL works. Wentz' first 16 happened all in the first year.

Wentz' first 4 games of his second season were much better than Trubisky's.

Wentz was in the same offense and had the same coaches for the most part. Trubisky is in the first year of his second offense.

 

[EbonyRaptor]

I don't know how good/bad Trubisky will be over the course of this season and beyond, but to include last season in a comparison with any other QB is not fair to Trubisky. If there was a common theme throughout the last season is that the Bears had no receiver that could get open with the exception of Cohen and the offensive coordinator couldn't figure out how to use him any farther than 5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Trubisky simply had no one to throw to. The Bears receiving corps was arguably the worst in the league - it was pathetic.

Using this season for comparison to other QBs is on a more level playing field but there is the extenuating circumstances of (1) new coach/system/playbook and (2) a whole new receiver corps learning a new playbook and getting in sync with Trubisky.

The Bears went from an abysmal receiver corps to possibly one of the best in the league. Recall last year when the Bears went with an empty backfield - if they ever did with that ragtag bunch - to what they can do this season - Robinson, Gabriel, Cohen, Miller and Burton. Quite a difference.

 

[bearmick]

For the record, I’m not saying Mitch is “as good or better than Wentz”. I’m saying after 16 full games they have similar stats and to be honest Mitch has the better stats in a far worse situation for the most part of the 16 games. Will Mitch be as good as Carson? Probably not Carson is a top 5 QB in my opinion. But I think Mitch can be a 7-12 kind of QB and that’s still plenty high enough to win a SB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't directing that at you so much as some of the usual suspects.

 

[Antobears]

I know this is something of an addiction to debate Mitch v wentz v Watson v mahommes but isn't it possible that they're all actually quite good?

 

[Starion]

It is indeed encouraging. I still do need a bigger sample size of good games beyond one game. But damn, it’s safe to say he showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he *can* do it and that he’s got the goods. I’m really hoping the next few games, he also plays well and shows he’s turned a corner with this offense.

OP compared an average of 1st 16 games to 1st 16 games. Can't get much more apples to apples than that. Ups & downs averaged out dude. Good & bad.

Trubisky also started with Fox and Friends and then a second playbook this year......

argument can be made both ways

Great point. Can be said that Trubs climbed uphill with Fox & Loggs' shitty playcally & SHIT WR coprs last season skewing things negatively.

He also played the first 16 games with Doug Pederson and Frank Reich coaching him.

He also had Zach Ertz, Alshon Jeffery, Nelson Algohor catching passes.

He also had Jason Peters [HOF], Jason Kelce [All Pro], Brandon Brooks [Pro Bowl], and Lane Johnson [All Pro] blocking for him.

See comment above. Impressive to even be close to Wentz, although is first year wasn't much to write home about either, despite these personel & coaching advantages > Trubs. Same coach & system throughout is huge, esp for a rookie. Yet Trubs managed to up his average enough to compare, even beat Wentz.

Thanks OP for interesting stats. SCIENCE. Hopefully causality can be more than inferred to = SB win also. I'd say Bears D is better than PHI's D was last year. Bear Down!

 

[Myk]

I know this is something of an addiction to debate Mitch v wentz v Watson v mahommes but isn't it possible that they're all actually quite good?

I don't know about Watson but I'd say signs are pointing up for Trubisky and especially for Mahomes.
I really didn't think about Mahomes much until the "it's only one game" crowd got me looking at what 6TDs means. If those 2 end up how the odds say they should and 2018 QBs end up as good as expected these years could be a much needed influx of QB talent in the NFL.

For Watson, all he did is win, now all he does is lose. I don't see him enough to guess why. At least from my seat, if he was a Bear QB I wouldn't be writing him off but but I'm more hopeful the way Trubisky's career is going.

 

[Toast88]

The elephant in the room is that that one game buoyed Trubisky's overall stats quite a bit.

That game happened. It is real. And Trubisky really did do those things.

But now it all rests on what that game will be---a weird one-game aberration, or the beginning of a turning-of-the-corner.

We all hope it's the latter. But let's not pretend his overall stats now being good is the result of sustained excellence---It's largely the product of having an incredible game.

 

[bearmick]

I don't know about Watson but I'd say signs are pointing up for Trubisky and especially for Mahomes.
I really didn't think about Mahomes much until the "it's only one game" crowd got me looking at what 6TDs means. If those 2 end up how the odds say they should and 2018 QBs end up as good as expected these years could be a much needed influx of QB talent in the NFL.

For Watson, all he did is win, now all he does is lose. I don't see him enough to guess why. At least from my seat, if he was a Bear QB I wouldn't be writing him off but but I'm more hopeful the way Trubisky's career is going.

Give the Texans our defense and the Bears their pathetic unit and we'll see who wins.

Watson is still better than Trubisky.

 

[Myk]

The elephant in the room is that that one game buoyed Trubisky's overall stats quite a bit.

That game happened. It is real. And Trubisky really did do those things.

But now it all rests on what that game will be---a weird one-game aberration, or the beginning of a turning-of-the-corner.

We all hope it's the latter. But let's not pretend his overall stats now being good is the result of sustained excellence---It's largely the product of having an incredible game.

That may be true about the numbers but considering bad QBs don't tend to have 6TD games and especially not 5TD halves, and complete busts really don't have 6TD games I'm calling party time. Our #2 pick isn't likely to wash out of the league because of incompetence and there's a very good chance he's at least mediocre if not a great one. :elephant: :buttrock: :woot:

Our biggest worry was he was a complete bust not even worthy of being a backup on any team like so many Bears QBs before. With this defense we can deal with mediocre. Better than Grossman and we won a Super Bowl.

Give the Texans our defense and the Bears their pathetic unit and we'll see who wins.

Watson is still better than Trubisky.

Odd how you're able to crown him with only 11 games.
I'm actually OK with that but call it what it is and stop trying to justify it. You see "it" with one but not the other.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

The elephant in the room is that that one game buoyed Trubisky's overall stats quite a bit.

That game happened. It is real. And Trubisky really did do those things.

But now it all rests on what that game will be---a weird one-game aberration, or the beginning of a turning-of-the-corner.

We all hope it's the latter. But let's not pretend his overall stats now being good is the result of sustained excellence---It's largely the product of having an incredible game.

Would you rather have had Mitch’s stats reflect Wentz’s more in the sense that he had 4 great games to start and then was pretty bad for the rest of the 16, or do you think it’s better Mitch kind of built up to this game after 15 games?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WindyCity]

Give the Texans our defense and the Bears their pathetic unit and we'll see who wins.

Watson is still better than Trubisky.

Deshaun Watson has some nice numbers this season. Unfortunately, a great deal of the production came in when his team was trailing.

And to blame the defense seems unfair. They are not as good as the Bears, but the offense has averaged 19.6/game before they got in a shoot out with the Colts that they should have tied.

They scored 17 against the Blaine Gabbert led Titans and they managed only 22, 1 TD was in garbage time when they had no chance to win, against the NYG who look like they suck.

 

[bearmick]

Odd how you're able to crown him with only 11 games.
I'm actually OK with that but call it what it is and stop trying to justify it. You see "it" with one but not the other.

Yes, I do see it more with Watson than with Trubisky so far, because he's played better. He's had multiple quality starts and has had high production. Trubisky has had far less quality starts and very poor production before the last game. For me to see Trubisky has having "it", I'll need to see more quality games. One breakout game, as phenomenally productive as it was, isn't enough.

I really don't see how this can viewed as unfair.