Bears Mailbag — What Questions Did Trubisky Answer In Win Over Lions?
Did Mitch Trubisky prove anything on Sunday? Does it lessen the need to bring in a starter in the off-season? We answered that and more in this week's Bears Mailbag.
The Chicago Bears breathed a slight bit of respectability into their season on Sunday. Facing a banged up Detroit Lions team without Matthew Stafford, the Bears played sloppy football but eventually eked out a 20-13 win — one that ended a four-game losing streak and improved them to 4-5.
The Bears now travel to Los Angeles to take on the Rams on Sunday Night Football. This game, which was billed as a potential NFC playoff preview early on, definitely lacks its anticipated luster. The Bears are 4-5 and the Rams, while 5-4, are struggling and behind San Francisco and Seattle (handily) in their own division.
If the Bears can somehow manage to win on the road and get to 5-5, we could see motivated, if not meaningful, football up through and beyond Thanksgiving. If they lose, though, we’ll see how they respond against a woeful New York Giants team the following week.
With that, I reach into this week’s Bears Mailbag. Thanks to everyone who submitted questions. Follow me on Twitter @DhruvKoul to continue the conversation.
Mailbag
If mitch keeps have flashes of being decent (like in the lions game) do you think they'll continue to roll with him next year?
— Adam(@AdamJaquadam) November 12, 2019
Mitch Trubisky had arguably his best game of the season last week. However, it still wasn’t nearly good enough. Keep in mind, Detroit has one of the worst defenses in the league due to all of their injuries, the Bears were at home, and the Lions lost many players during the game as well. Trubisky and the offense couldn’t get out of their own red zone in the first half, and after scoring on three straight drives, they failed to put the game away as the Lions made their attempted comeback.
Trubisky played pretty decently overall — he made some throws even when the offense failed that resulted in drops. But he took at least three sacks that were entirely on him (of the five total) and still missed a couple throws on third down. The reality is that while he was ‘better’, that kind of play isn’t going to beat good teams. And it likely doesn’t even beat the Lions last week if they had Matthew Stafford.
Unless Trubisky rises to the occasion and significantly overperforms how he’s been doing over the remaining seven games, I think the Bears will be bringing in legitimate starting competition. This is a second overall pick we’re talking about. Scoring 20 points at home against a bad defense and an offense that doesn’t have an MVP caliber quarterback cannot be the standard.
See above for a background about my thoughts on this. He did prove that he *can* beat man coverage in certain situations. He proved that he *can* hit some deep passes. He proved that he still can’t fully read a defense, nor will he step up or run consistently like he used to do last year.
In all, it was another weird, maddening, yet better performance that still wasn’t good enough. Let’s see how he looks against the Rams on Sunday night to see if he can stack two decent performances together (and one in prime time). But this is a second overall pick. Games like he had on Sunday should be at the very least routine, not an achievement.
See the first question above and my response for a large background/intro on my thoughts for this question.
Mitch will very likely be part of the QB room next year. By all accounts, he works very hard, is detailed and persistent in his study, and is an outstanding leader. Even if he’s not the starter next year, I’m sure the team would feel comfortable in Trubisky graciously taking a back seat to help the team win with another starter. Leadership includes being positive and helping out in times of adversity, like next year is surely to be for him.
Not to mention, Trubisky will likely be one of the most physically talented backup QBs in the history of the NFL. And by essentially “learning” behind a new starter next year, he’d be more than adequate (and prepared) to step in in case the starter either doesn’t perform or gets injured.
There are quite a few. Quarterback is essential. The Bears also need to add a legitimate starter opposite Khalil Mack at EDGE. They will need a new lock-down CB opposite Kyle Fuller, someone who can play better press-man. The TE position likely needs to be revamped (again), and the Bears may need a new S with Ha Ha Clinton-Dix playing himself into a new contract that might be too large for the Bears to afford.
The Bears can also certainly stand to add depth at OL (particularly at tackle), and ILB (given both Danny Trevathan and Nick Kwiatkoski are coming out of contract).
That’s quite a bit of work for Ryan Pace to undertake in the off-season!
As far as punter goes, Pat O’Donnell has actually had a pretty good (and quite busy) season for the most part. The Bears punt so much (and often from deep inside their own territory so much), that even when he’s flipping field position it feels like the other team has a big advantage. That’s because they do, but it’s more an indictment of the offense.
Quarterbacks are expensive. Whether trading for a particular QB or trading for the right to draft a QB, it’s clear that teams that are making the opportunity available expect a bounty.
Guys like Cam Newton, Alex Smith, and Nick Foles will cost not only their contract (whatever they’re currently owed), but also significant draft capital to acquire them in the first place. I’m talking multiple draft picks, some in the higher rounds. I won’t speculate on particular prices, but you can look at what Washington paid for Smith in the first place as a good example.
It’s why I think the Bears would be better served going the free agent market route to get a veteran QB (someone like Marcus Mariota or Teddy Bridgewater). They’ll be a bit expensive, but it’s just money at that point.