Jack Parkman

The one thing that Jerry Angelo said that is probably the smartest thing he ever said is the following : "It's all about the Quarterback" In 95% of cases, I don't give a damn how good your defense is, you aren't winning jack shit without a QB. They weren't 100% sure they had one yet, therefore, while you're getting an awesome player, it is still a huge risk. Their defense will probably be good enough to win 6-9 games every year, but unless Mitch gets better in 2019, it is dumb. If they pick top 15 in 2020 they lose immediately.

This is the crux of my argument. Thanks. It takes a perfect storm to win a title without a HOF QB.

There are no sure things, but you can't win the lottery if you don't play. You don't win multiple Super Bowls without a HOF QB, unless you're that once every 30 years fluke. That is the point I was making. With regard to Mack, Love the player, hate what they gave up to get him.

Yes, that is common knowledge. Read the above addendum. You don't win multiple titles in the NFL without a HOF QB. You get one at most. There were 2 outliers 30 years apart that pulled it off. Nobody's goal is to win just one. You know what those teams did have? a QB that was good, but not great, and was also a 1st overall pick.

Joe Flacco played out of his mind during that run. So did Doug Williams. So did Phil Simms in 1986. All average QBs who went on a hot streak and won a title. You have to get lucky. You can't plan for it. It just happens. I ask how many teams win 2+ superbowls with the same QB that is average and vs how many win 2+ with a HOF QB. The Raiders in 1980-83 and the Giants in 2007-11 are the only ones that pulled it off.

That season he was, but not really. Which proves my point. Even a QB playing way above his head for one game can take down a great defense. QBs are the ultimate gamechanger. You can't win without them.

Ironically, that was the game that Montana got hurt in, IIRC.

Think about how the mid 80s Bears played defense and think of Bill Walsh's offense. Schematically, Montana gets the ball out of his hands before the defenders have a chance to get there. This is also how today's Bears are being attacked. Eventually, it will work. Rodgers executed it to perfection in the 2nd half of the season opener. It is an insult to my football intelligence to argue that the 80s Bears ever had a chance vs. the Niners in a playoff game.

They got beat by Phil Simms and Doug Williams too, who both had a great season the year they beat them.

That one I wasn't completely sure about. They did, in fact play them in 84 and 88 and got pantsed both times. Outscored 51-3 in both games. They lost 23-0 in 84 and 28-3 in 88.

Again, if Montana doesn't get hurt and the NFC doesn't completely suck ass in 2006, the Bears never get there. the #2 seed in the NFC in 2006 was 10-6. I have never before or since seen a 10-6 team get a bye that I can remember. I've seen 11 win teams get a bye plenty of times, but not 10 wins.

They played them in 84, 88 and 89 and lost all three times.

Said great quarterbacking was Joe Montana kicking the 80s Bears ass. All time QB vs All time Defensive group. Montana 3, Bears Defense 0.

The reality is to win a title you need both, but you have to have a guy who can score against a good defense or they'll get beat. Ask the Jaguars how having a top 3 defense, and a 17 point lead at halftime worked for them in the AFCCG. Great quarterbacking is the ultimate trump card. The 80s Bears had a long stretch of having one of the great defensive groups of all time. Every time they played Montana and the Niners in the playoffs they lost. That should tell you all you need to know about them. In 1985, Montana got hurt and the Niners missed the playoffs. I'm convinced the Bears are still without a Super Bowl had that not happened.

Well sure, for a year or two. Go look at the teams that are annual playoff participants and tell me what they all have in common. Go look at teams that make the playoffs 7+ times in a 10 year span and tell me what they have in common. Hint: it has nothing to do with the defensive side of the ball.

Maybe the Rams, Maybe the Eagles, maybe the Panthers, those guys that have young-ish QBs that have proven they're at least good with the potential to be great. Those teams I wouldn't have complained about. Those teams are pretty sure they have that guy. No, I actually think that so called "common and accepted knowledge" is actually incorrect. I think that everyone is wrong. I've been trying to convince people otherwise. I think that the majority are actually falling victim to group think and aren't using their critical thinking skills. I ask you this. If only 2 teams have won multiple SBs without a HOF QB while having the same guy under center, shouldn't that be the definitive proof? You don't need a HOF QB to win A Super Bowl, but you almost definitely need one to win MULTIPLE Super Bowls. The goal should never be one and done.

Everything. You don't make that trade unless you know you have a keeper at QB. In my mind, you don't have one unless you're winning because of who is under center. QB play is very black and white to me. Either you're winning because of who you have at QB, or you're winning in spite of who you have at QB. There is no gray area there. Either you have one, you know it, or you don't and you should be looking. Most GMs are only allowed to pick 1 QB. Either they pick the next HOF guy or they lose their job. It is getting to the point that even a great defense can't overcome shoddy QB play.

The reason why I made that post, was because however complete the Bears roster is otherwise, if the QB isn't ready to win, the team is not ready to win. I think the Bears are doing whoever gets Trubisky next a huge favor by developing him because it is going to take roughly 4-6 seasons before he reaches the level everyone wants him to, and they'll run him out of town before he gets there. Mitch had 1st round talent, but not 1st round experience. I hope this is a valuable lesson for NFL teams and players with 1 season as a starter start getting graded accordingly. Maybe my standards are too high, but if a QB isn't a future HOF, he's not good enough. Future HOF QBs win roughly 70% of all Super Bowls. I don't think that is going to change any time soon. If you want to bet on that 30%, be my guest but I'll take the 70%. Yes, I believe my QB has to be Brady, Rodgers or Brees so if he isn't, he's not good enough in my eyes. Sorry, but until the tide turns and it gets closer to 50-50 I'll continue to believe this. My $0.02 Teams without a QB who will go to Canton, shouldn't trade 1st round picks under any circumstances.

In my mind, the success or failure of the Mack trade hinges on the difference between the 2020 Bears 1st rounder and the Raiders 2020 2nd rounder. If the Bears are picking 21 or lower in the 1st and the Raiders are in the 33-40 range, the Bears are easily just fine. If the Bears are picking top 15 then it is a loss. The 2019 1st is a wash because the Bears were using it on an edge rusher anyway. If the Raiders end up middle of the league and are picking in the 50s in the 2nd that year then it depends on if the Bears made the playoffs. If so, it is an even trade at that point.

I ask this question, as all 3 have had their bright moments(Rodon's July/August, Giolito's August/Early September, Lopez's mid-August-September) and points of being absolute garbage(Rodon-September, Giolito-Start of the season-June 15th Lopez-June 1-August 15th) So the question begs, which guy is each pitcher really? My thoughts: Rodon isn't missing bats like he used to. Will that come back next year? Walk issues creeping back up in September, and he was really lucky with batted balls during his hot streak. I don't really know what to make of his half season. Giolito goes as his fastball velocity goes. If he can hit the mid 90s, he's dominant. low hits and 1-3 walks per game. If he drops to the 91-93 range he gets shelled. The last 2-3 weeks or so his velo has dropped again, and so has his performance. I think he's tired and building up arm strength to work toward 200 innings next season. A lot will be said about where he is out of spring training. His command and velocity got much better as the year went on, but late in September those issues have popped up again. Now that his delivery has been straightened out, 2019 is huge for him. It is time to put up or shut up. Lopez is weird. For the majority of the season, he was not missing bats, even while throwing in the high 90s. He also wasn't using his changeup because he didn't have the feel for it. Hanging changeups get hit hard, and that happened to Lopez a lot. Since August 15th, he seems to have discovered the feelins for the changeup and has exploded. Also, he ditched the fastball-cutter combo for a fastball-change-curve combo at three distinct speeds and that has helped immensely. He also has ditched the high 80s cutter he had to start the season for a low 80s slider that he mixes in there as a show me pitch. The guy we've seen toward the end of the season is much better than the guy we saw open the season that was more smoke and mirrors than anything else. Ranking in confidence level in 2019 performance: From 1-10 with 1 being a DFA candidate and 10 being Cy Young candidate Rodon- 6 (I really don't know what he is after the injury. He has to start missing basts again) Lopez-7.5(I gave him a half point, it is ok for you to do it too-I think he's going to put together a solid 2019) Giolito 5-I don't know what to make of him either. It all depends on his fastball velocity. If he can keep it in the 93-96 range the majority of next season, I think he'll end up being every bit as good as Lopez. If he still throws 91-93, he's toast, and bust will be a common phrase when they talk about him in baseball circles. The only reason Rodon has a higher confidence level is because he's never been as bad as Giolito was to start the season. Otherwise, I'm about equally confident in both because of their walk/command issues. I used to be a huge fan of Giolito but this season is really testing my patience. I wasn't as high on Lopez as I was Giolito until Lopez started missing bats regularly.

I'm bummed about Kopech going down. Tank is still on for 2019 without him. Giolito's stats still look awful, but the defense is doing him no favors lately.

Falcons are good. Panthers are good. Idk what to think of the remainder of the NFCN but they all could be decent too. Both the NFCN and NFCS are gauntlets, especially with Tampa coming out of nowhere to be decent. The NFCW has the Rams and not much else with the Garoppalo injury. Washington might be ok besides the Eagles in the NFCE. Out of all of the teams other than the Bears on the NFC, the only truly bad teams are Dallas, the Giants, San Francisco and Arizona.

I thought they were a 4-6 win team and the Mack acquisition took them up to the 5-7 range. Mitch had to take a major step forward in order for them to be anything more. He hasn't. The NFC is loaded and anyone expecting them to make the playoffs or even finish .500 is going to be really disappointed. I have mixed feelings about the Mack trade. He is an awesome player, but the acquisition cost was too much for the Bears to give at this point in their development. If they can make the playoffs in 2019, and make an NFCCG appearance it would be worth it, because they were probably spending the 2019 1st on an edge rusher anyway. But if they pick in the top 15 in 2020, that is where the acquisition becomes asinine because what good does it do to trade 2 1st round picks for a great player on a bad team? This is why I think Gruden is laughing at Pace. If any team other than the Bears in the mix offered 2 1sts, I dont think they would have made that deal. They think the Bears are bad and will still be bad next year so they think they're getting 2 top 12 picks for him. Idk if anyone would make that trade.

He absolutely did a horrible coaching job today. This was a pathetic performance. They tried to lose 500 times. If a win could ever feel like your team lost by 40 pts this is it. There is zero reason for optimism and I don't see them winning more than 4 or 5 more games. Enjoy being in 1st place because this is the last they'll see of it. Based on this week's performances, I cam no longer claim the NFCN as the best division in football. They all suck.

Wait both Robinson and Miller are injured?