Chicago Bears: Let’s discuss Mitch Trubisky and other quarterback options

The Chicago Bears are the definition of mediocrity

I was recently asked if I was a fan of mediocrity. Now that is a loaded question because everybody has a different definition of mediocrity. I don’t want the Chicago Bears to finish 4-12 just to gain a high draft pick. I don’t believe in tanking because I don’t believe it works.

If the Chicago Bears finish 8-8, 9-7, or 10-6 and have a playoff berth, you best believe I am happy. Anything can happen in the playoffs, back on the subject of Chicago Bears quarterbacks. I can’t stress this enough, I don’t believe Mitch Trubisky will be back, but I don’t want to replace him with someone the same or worse.

Nick Foles is here, and he could potentially play better, but he could be worse. That is enough already. The next Chicago Bears quarterback should be hands-down better than Mitch Trubisky (if Foles is kept) or a rookie that fits Matt Nagy so well that he looks better than Mitch Trubisky.

Now, I don’t mean physically better — overall better than Mitch Trubisky should be the goal. Suppose it is Mac Jones. After all, he can read defenses and make accurate passes or Ian Book because his leadership skills are top-notch. Too many people get caught up in arm strength and physical gifts.

Jameis Winston can flick the ball further down the field than most quarterbacks in the league, but he is throwing that thing regardless of the situation. Marcus Mariota is faster, stronger, and bigger than Trubisky, but he also has had many injuries and still can’t read the field at this point in his career. Teddy Bridgewater is just bad. I think it is funny when people call him a game manager. Bridgewater is someone people want to be good but just isn’t — a worse version of Tyrod Taylor.