• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Baker Mayfield: Fire The Cannons

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
godfather said:
These game managing QB's like Trubisky are depressing. I rather be stuck with the Colt McCoy's and Kiser's of the world than the Flacco's, Trubisky's, and the Stafford's.

Because the latter you're stuck with, and the former you can get rid of and try again at least. Sure, lighting can maybe strike in a bottle like it did with Flacco that one season and win a super bowl. But that's like buying a lottery ticket. Especially today.

In today's game, the odds of the Bears actually winning it all are so low. That kind of era is fading. Sure, they can get up for a game and maybe beat a Rams team on any given Sunday.

But the odds of them actually then going though the Saints next, then Pats/Chiefs are pretty low.
Click to expand...

So funny, I just made the exact same argument to a guy I work with who is a Vikings fan. I said what sucks about Cousins is he is just good enough to not draft a qb to replace him for the next decade but to win the Super Bowl, you have to have a Ravens level Defense.

That said, the Bears might have that level defense for Trubisky to win it in the next few years.
 
Lee said:
So funny, I just made the exact same argument to a guy I work with who is a Vikings fan. I said what sucks about Cousins is he is just good enough to not draft a qb to replace him for the next decade but to win the Super Bowl, you have to have a Ravens level Defense.

That said, the Bears might have that level defense for Trubisky to win it in the next few years.
Click to expand...

I just think the league has really changed. With the offenses and QB's in the NFL, I really don't think you can win a super bowl like the Ravens did. Different era, different defensive rules.

Can you win a single game against a team like the Rams? Sure. Can you beat 3-4 teams in a row, with a good QB, playing someone like Trubisky? I just don't see it. The defense could play well but he's bound to shit himself 1 out of 4 times.....and you can't just game manage 3-4 games in a row like the Ravens could with Dilfer. Teams score too many points now.
 
I'mWithDan said:
I just think the league has really changed. With the offenses and QB's in the NFL, I really don't think you can win a super bowl like the Ravens did. Different era, different defensive rules.

Can you win a single game against a team like the Rams? Sure. Can you beat 3-4 teams in a row, with a good QB, playing someone like Trubisky? I just don't see it. The defense could play well but he's bound to shit himself 1 out of 4 times.....and you can't just game manage 3-4 games in a row like the Ravens could with Dilfer. Teams score too many points now.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think what Lee is saying is that, if Trubisky develops into a guy who rarely makes mistakes and can extend plays with his legs, the Bears may have a shot.

Like, if Trubisky becomes the 16-18 best QB in the NFL, that Bears defense is dominant enough to have a shot.

ETA: I don’t think Trubisky will becomes that guy. His vision is not good enough nor is his arm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
jking948 said:
To be fair, I think what Lee is saying is that, if Trubisky develops into a guy who rarely makes mistakes and can extend plays with his legs, the Bears may have a shot.

Like, if Trubisky becomes the 16-18 best QB in the NFL, that Bears defense is dominant enough to have a shot.

ETA: I don’t think Trubisky will becomes that guy. His vision is not good enough nor is his arm.
Click to expand...

Wild the jump that defense made with Smith and Mack coming in....

Mack for 2 firsts just seems like incredible value for the Bears at this point.


Secretly wish the Browns did it......
 
Triplethreat said:
Mack + Garrett = best defense in the NFL just based off those two or is that a negative?
Click to expand...

Just tough to give Garrett that bonkers extension if you’re going to give Mack 5 years as well.

Years 1 and 2 would be golden, but the allocation of dollars into those two at similar positions would be tougher for the team in the long term.
 
Keep building while balancing the salary cap. Mack and Garrett on insane deals would have us very bad in a few departments. We were also in no shape to deal 2 years worth of top picks.

Mack and Garrett is sexy, I get it, but we'll live on just fine. Dorsey will find us another pass rusher that's worth a damn.
 
AZ_ said:
Just tough to give Garrett that bonkers extension if you’re going to give Mack 5 years as well.

Years 1 and 2 would be golden, but the allocation of dollars into those two at similar positions would be tougher for the team in the long term.
Click to expand...

Actually Myles is still on his rookie deal until 2020 and has his 5th year option in 2021. In 2020 Mack will be in year 2 of 6 of his deal but he has an early out in 2022 which happens to be the year that Myles is an UFA. So if we traded for Mack and used the Franchise tag on Myles in 2021 then technically at most we would only have 1 year where both would be on monster deals. Is it possible? Yes. Is it ideal? That depends on the makeup of your team and with Baker and Ward a full year behind Myles there's a legit chance that we could've had 4 full years including this one of Khalil Mack without having to shell out another mega contract.

This is also something to keep in mind when talking about trading for Jalen Ramsey and OBJ. Jalen Ramsey isn't an UFA until 2021 and OBJ has an early out on his deal in 2021. Myles will be the first mega contract we have to sign and that won't be until 2022 at the earliest. That's 3 more full seasons we can take advantage of Myles, Baker, and Ward's rookie deals.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top