Al, they may be different in presentation but the same ridiculous thought offered up twice....Just saying.

While I agree with your narrow point on Trubisky, it is enough to just state that without attacking the piece. We could have a whole lot of nothing out there like other sites. If you want to ridicule, let loose your venom on the person who throughout this canard in the first place.

I believe you come here to troll, pure and simple. You were being negative about the site.

No more food for you. Have a nice day.

But it worked! And they got Taryn pretty good. so she spend half of her day here posting and thinking about a topic, she told us that it is not even a topic.

As smart as she his…………...

"....then this question is about as obviously asinine as a question can be."

Please make up you mind..you just wrote I was negative saying the same thing.

SIGH : /

I agree with the article, I don't agree it being on this site. We all know what is true so it should be forwarded to a Bears site.

As for Taryn she can share her thoughts anytime she wants. It is kind of nice to read non bandwagon thoughts in the comment section.

God forbid people go against the popular hype before we start the season.

I fell for the hype the last 2 seasons and after last year I said not this year, AINT GONNA HAPPEN and you know what it ain't happening now.
No hype Kool-Aid for me.

You do realize that the reason for so much discussion on this article is because of my calling you out for the piggy back article about a topic or rather ridiculous question of Trubisky even remotely being close to Rodgers worst day or season much less better. The comments would have been perhaps 10-12 from the blind faith optimist of usual attendance, the rest are because of me stirring the pot and opening the door for their hate of anything I write simply because I wrote it and am one of the few to call bs on things that are obvious bs. The premise of your article was based on bs and which was bs on any format as to being worthy for not once but twice to which the whole world knows has and can never offer any reasonable evidence to discuss it at all.

Gman1976,

Sounds good to me.

Muhammad Ali much better than Leon Spinx. Yet Spinx won.

Correct! I don't like comparing. Next: Starr, Favre, or Rodgers? It's about who is the better QB that day? And that's what I go by.!! Count me in!

As I said earlier, the Bears were a better team last year. They were particularly impressive on D. It is possible to accept that without giving any credence to an assertion that Trubisky is comparable in terms of ability or value with Rodgers.

Trubisky didn’t lose too many games for the Bears, but his biggest contribution by far was that he allowed them to spend cap elsewhere because he is still on his rookie deal. Ultimately, the limitations of that approach coupled with an as yet questionable QB were shown in the playoffs. Contrast the Seahawks with Wilson before he got paid. Trubisky is not yet close to Wilson in his ability to take the contributions from the rest of a then very strong team and propel them over the finish line.

As Demon foretold, once again, Old School selectively picks out stats to support his position & disregards the entire picture. --- Oh, wait... I take that back... Can't attack the man called Old School (no matter how nonsensical his posts become).

Interesting and probably true. Remember that GB did have the most expensive receiving corps in the NFL in Cobb, Nelson and the first year of Davante's new contract. GB also spend a wee bit of money on its OL for much of this decade, whether it was Sitton and Lang, or Bakh and Bulaga. Let's look at positional spending on offense:

2019: 4th highest overall, 4th OL, 23rd WR.
2018: 4th highest, overall, 13th OL, 2nd WR.
2017: 6th highest overall, 11th OL, 1st WR.
2016: 14th highest, overall, 20th OL, 6th WR.
2015: 17th highest, overall, 15th OL, 15th WR.
2014: 22nd highest overall, 20th OL, 22nd WR.
2013: 14th highest overall, 23rd OL, 18th WR.

Obviously most of those years AR was highly paid. There doesn't seem to be a lot of correlation between putting an elite offense on the field and paying a bunch. For quite some time AR carried the offense, or there was a steady supply of rookies producing on rookie deals.

Money spent is always largely dependent on how well the GM drafts. The optimal program doesn't have a bunch of decent players on 2nd contracts. The ideal is to keep only the really good players on 2nd and even 3rd contracts and squeeze production out of players on rookie contracts for one's other needs. We used to have "moneyball" articles on ALLGBP, but those have been harder to write lately.

Raji, CM3, Sitton, Bulaga, Tramon, Shields, Cobb, Daniels - kind of, Lacy, Bakh, Linsley: all these guys provided 3 years or more of good production while on their rookie deals. Daniels imo qualifies, and perhaps Adams, but one can suggest that they only gave GB two good years on their rookie deals. Nothing wrong with two years, but it isn't Linsley starting and being an immediate above average starter.

Nicely distilled.

First player that pop in my head was Nick Foles when talking about comparing QB. His execution of the Eagles offensive scheme during both of their playoff runs was good as any QB in the NFL. Foles is a perfect example of a player who matured and used his talents in their system to maximum advantage. I have no doubt that the Bears were looking at Trubisky in much the same way. As for the Packers offense, McCarthy had put a new system in place by 2012. Rodgers had problems running the system, which is ironic as every team in the league was running some version of the one back with RPO by 2014. Packers were an early adopter. Why Rodgers had problems was very simple and difficult at the same time. The new one back made deep routes secondary to skinny posts and quick outs to get the ball in the hands of the Packers much more quickly. (YAC and taking the stress of the O line on holding blocks) The one back imposes timing and makes checkdowns important. Traits that should fit Rodgers like a glove. Instead, it seems he saw parts of the new system as a straitjacket. It was only when McCarthy reverted to the classic 'west coast' in 2014 and the second half of 2016 did we see Aaron Rodgers be 'Aaron Rodgers'. And do not over look the lost of the FB position as how it changed Rodgers play style. Like you tgr, I am hopeful that Rodgers will adapt and flourish in LaFleaur's scheme. But lets not forget that Rodgers had been playing in a similar system since 2012. Yes the relationship between Rodgers and McCarthy had broken down, but Rodgers's flaws were exposed in one back sets, forcing McCarthy to revert back to two back sets for at least half of NFL seasons from 2012-2016. McCarthy system worked. The question is why did Rodgers not have the success, as he defines it, in a scheme that was built for him.

Interesting take. Not exactly what I saw but I'm looking forward to vastly improved play calling and results.

.