(670 The Score) When a team has gone this long without anything genuinely special at quarterback like the Bears have, it apparently results in the kind of learned helplessness that causes people to think like losers. It may be a bit understandable, but it's still wrong.
The latest news of offensive tackle Teven Jenkins needing back surgery that some of us saw coming for weeks has been the trigger point for a bad sports take with surprising traction -- that rookie quarterback Justin Fields should sit behind veteran Andy Dalton for now, not because he isn't better, but in some backward effort to protect him from opponents until it magically gets safer out there for him. Or something.
There are a number of obvious problems with this half-baked argument, ones that are easy to identify and dismiss summarily by confronting them with logic and known facts instead of guesswork and the cherry-picking of results to twist the meaning of outcomes. What's more, the very opposite of it is true.
Shop for the latest Bears team gear here
First is the fact that the Bears' offensive line was expected to be bad even before the first injury occurred. Pro Football Focus had them rated 28th out of the 32 NFL teams with their starting group intact, including a healthy Jenkins at left tackle. If this outsized fear didn't already exist and inform such opinions, there's no reason for it now. And if there's one clear positive from the mess of 2020, it was this coaching staff's ability to restructure a capable enough line on the fly amid a similar spate of injuries, even discovering and developing players who now hold more prominent roles.
Second is a glaring flaw of reasoning: If Fields has to be kept out of harm's way, what happens next when the far less mobile Dalton faces this seemingly inevitable onslaught that knocks him out of commission? The way this particular case is built, it would mean using Nick Foles at that point, because Fields is then in no less peril then than he was before. Turning to him would be an admission that he should've been the starter all along, and that obviously makes no sense. But such is the way it is set up.
Third is the entire idea of treating a well-seasoned and polished first-round pick as if he's some kind of collectible figurine whose value will decrease the moment the original packaging is unsealed. That's far from true, because Fields is expected to get even better with experience. The sooner he plays, the sooner he builds a bank of live-speed participation that allows him to operate even faster and more confidently with every snap.
Next is a classic logical pitfall: the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in this case better understood as the Carr/Mahomes presumptions on either end of the spectrum. "What about David Carr?" is the belief that the top overall draft pick of 2002 never lived up to his potential because he was sacked so often, a belief that simply can't be proved. He was sacked plenty, sure, but he might also have just been bad, and one may not assign causality despite any anecdotal retroactive examination or subjective testimony. The Patrick Mahomes point isn't directly germane to this specific counter-argument but is similarly fallacious: Mahomes sat for a year and was great, but it can't be proved to be causal rather than coincidental. The Chiefs may have just chosen to miss a year of greatness so they could enjoy more Alex Smith.
Finally and most importantly is the selection bias involved in how we remember quarterbacks operating with lines that have varied widely in quality and how truly great players at the position make so much of it not matter. Aaron Rodgers has taken the field behind any number of pieced-together groups down key starters, and he never stopped shredding opponents like the Bears on those days. Similarly, Russell Wilson has been sacked 394 times in his nine years behind a line famous for being hurt and bad, full of draft disappointments and cheap in free agency, and none of it has stopped him from being one of the most dynamic playmakers of his era. In fact, the urgency may in part have brought it out of Wilson.
Why?
Because of a reason we in Chicago are unconditioned to really get.
When your quarterback is the guy, he makes every other thing matter less. It's all better because of him and his unique ability to elevate others because of a combination of awareness, accuracy, decision-making, athleticism, speed, toughness and leadership.
In Chicago, we're too accustomed to thinking conversely, that any quarterback needs a warm and supportive nest of protection and all else around him idealized to make negative outcomes a little less likely. We come by such feelings honestly, considering our shared history watching so many fall short of expectations.
As excited as we are about what we think Justin Fields can be, we must realize what we really mean by that and act accordingly.
Dan Bernstein is the co-host of the Bernstein & Rahimi Show on middays from 9 a.m. until noon on 670 The Score. You can follow him on Twitter @Dan_Bernstein.
