there are, of course examples of success and failure on both sides of the controversy. Still, for those who think it's a no-brainer to start J.J., let me offer a horrifying analogy from not so long ago, and by not so long, I mean yesterday.
In the off-season, the Bears signed Andy Dalton to a one-year deal to be their starting QB this year. Dalton is the quintessential, experienced "game manager"--accurate, relatively mistake free, enough arm to get it deep, but not to zip passes into tight windows, not great mobility, but quick release and willingness to check down means less sacks than would otherwise be the case with his OLs--in short, a solid QB with a winning NFL record as a starting QB, despite being on some truly bad teams, albeit limited upside (4 playoff appearances, lost each time). Then, they drafted Justin Fields as their #1 pick in the draft. Fields is the very antithesis of Dalton in many respects--great size, big arm, extremely mobile, all the physical characteristics you want in a QB except zero experience. Since the draft, many Bears fans have been clamoring for the Bears to start Fields over Dalton because he's the future, and needs to get his reps now.
Yesterday, because of an injury to Dalton last week, those fans got their wish. The results were...not good. The Bears may have become the first team in pro football history to gain more yards on a single penalty (48 on a very questionable pass interference call in the third quarter) than they gained from scrimmage in the entire game (47)--if they weren't, the number of such games can surely be counted on the fingers of one hand. Fields, who was sacked 9 times (it could have easily been a dozen) looked totally traumatized during and after the game. As a Bears fan who thinks that despite his OSU pedigree, he has the potential to be great, I hope getting reps means more than losing one's confidence while getting your brains beat out. However, I don't know yet whether that will be the case. I do know that he's a solar system away from being ready to start, or even to be competitive, against quality teams, despite looking good in the pre-season against second level guys and great evaluations and performances from the previous level (college).
In fact, the Bears don't have the talent, or the offensive creativity, to be very good no matter who starts at QB--they were much better with Dalton in week 1 against a better defense (the Rams) than they were yesterday, but they still lost big and scored only 14 points despite moving the ball well between the 20s. The WR group is not very good, and the OL is awful, especially in pass blocking. Truthfully, though, does this Michigan team have the talent, or offensive creativity, to be any better than good no matter who is playing QB? When Chad Henne succeeded as a freshman QB at Michigan, he had Braylon Edwards, Jason Avant and Steve Breaston playing WR, and three OLs who played in the NFL, one of whom was the number 1 pick in the entire NFL draft. I'm not seeing Edwards or Avant or Breaston or Jake Long or David Baas or even Adam Stenovich on this roster, or even close, though hopefully, Zak Zinter can reach the Stenovich, or even Baas, level as he matures.
It is unlikely that we will be an elite team playing Cade McNamara at QB. At the same time, color me extremely skeptical that a team with this level of talent and experience would be elite if you tossed career prime Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers into our starting lineup, and that's even before you throw the extremely conservative, nee stubborn, play calling and offensive approach into the equation (OK, maybe Brady, he's one of ours, and he's the GOAT). Further, in my view, this is more likely to be a respectable 8-4/9-3 team by being conservative and avoiding mistakes than it is by taking risks, albeit far, far less likely to beat OSU or PSU on the road. If that's correct (and I acknowledge that there's room for debate here), the questions, to me, are two-fold--(1) is it more prioritize winning at a sufficient level to recover from last year's disaster, be able to recruit, and set a baseline moving forward than it is to get J.J. live reps and experience; and (2) is feeding J.J. to the wolves, as we enter a stretch where 5 of our next 7 are on the road, and the 8th is OSU at home likely to help him mature rapidly, and is that worth the risk of getting him killed and/or sucking the confidence out of him?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that they are not as simple as many are positing.
Thoughts?
In the off-season, the Bears signed Andy Dalton to a one-year deal to be their starting QB this year. Dalton is the quintessential, experienced "game manager"--accurate, relatively mistake free, enough arm to get it deep, but not to zip passes into tight windows, not great mobility, but quick release and willingness to check down means less sacks than would otherwise be the case with his OLs--in short, a solid QB with a winning NFL record as a starting QB, despite being on some truly bad teams, albeit limited upside (4 playoff appearances, lost each time). Then, they drafted Justin Fields as their #1 pick in the draft. Fields is the very antithesis of Dalton in many respects--great size, big arm, extremely mobile, all the physical characteristics you want in a QB except zero experience. Since the draft, many Bears fans have been clamoring for the Bears to start Fields over Dalton because he's the future, and needs to get his reps now.
Yesterday, because of an injury to Dalton last week, those fans got their wish. The results were...not good. The Bears may have become the first team in pro football history to gain more yards on a single penalty (48 on a very questionable pass interference call in the third quarter) than they gained from scrimmage in the entire game (47)--if they weren't, the number of such games can surely be counted on the fingers of one hand. Fields, who was sacked 9 times (it could have easily been a dozen) looked totally traumatized during and after the game. As a Bears fan who thinks that despite his OSU pedigree, he has the potential to be great, I hope getting reps means more than losing one's confidence while getting your brains beat out. However, I don't know yet whether that will be the case. I do know that he's a solar system away from being ready to start, or even to be competitive, against quality teams, despite looking good in the pre-season against second level guys and great evaluations and performances from the previous level (college).
In fact, the Bears don't have the talent, or the offensive creativity, to be very good no matter who starts at QB--they were much better with Dalton in week 1 against a better defense (the Rams) than they were yesterday, but they still lost big and scored only 14 points despite moving the ball well between the 20s. The WR group is not very good, and the OL is awful, especially in pass blocking. Truthfully, though, does this Michigan team have the talent, or offensive creativity, to be any better than good no matter who is playing QB? When Chad Henne succeeded as a freshman QB at Michigan, he had Braylon Edwards, Jason Avant and Steve Breaston playing WR, and three OLs who played in the NFL, one of whom was the number 1 pick in the entire NFL draft. I'm not seeing Edwards or Avant or Breaston or Jake Long or David Baas or even Adam Stenovich on this roster, or even close, though hopefully, Zak Zinter can reach the Stenovich, or even Baas, level as he matures.
It is unlikely that we will be an elite team playing Cade McNamara at QB. At the same time, color me extremely skeptical that a team with this level of talent and experience would be elite if you tossed career prime Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers into our starting lineup, and that's even before you throw the extremely conservative, nee stubborn, play calling and offensive approach into the equation (OK, maybe Brady, he's one of ours, and he's the GOAT). Further, in my view, this is more likely to be a respectable 8-4/9-3 team by being conservative and avoiding mistakes than it is by taking risks, albeit far, far less likely to beat OSU or PSU on the road. If that's correct (and I acknowledge that there's room for debate here), the questions, to me, are two-fold--(1) is it more prioritize winning at a sufficient level to recover from last year's disaster, be able to recruit, and set a baseline moving forward than it is to get J.J. live reps and experience; and (2) is feeding J.J. to the wolves, as we enter a stretch where 5 of our next 7 are on the road, and the 8th is OSU at home likely to help him mature rapidly, and is that worth the risk of getting him killed and/or sucking the confidence out of him?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that they are not as simple as many are positing.
Thoughts?
