clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Were the Bears right to decline QB Mitch Trubisky’s option?

The Sun-Times’ Patrick Finley, Jason Lieser and Mark Potash answer the Bears’ most pressing question of the week.

Bears quarterback Mitch Trubisky throws against the Chiefs in December.
Bears quarterback Mitch Trubisky throws against the Chiefs in December.
Stacy Revere/Getty Images

The Sun-Times’ Patrick Finley, Jason Lieser and Mark Potash answer the Bears’ most pressing question of the week: Did they do the right thing in declining quarterback Mitch Trubisky’s fifth-year option on Saturday?

Finley: Probably. Could you imagine general manager Ryan Pace trying to sell the locker room — or the media — on why the Bears absolutely had to pledge $24.8 million in 2021 to someone they can’t even call a starter with a straight face? Trubisky had to merely be adequate last year to justify a fifth-year option that was guaranteed only for injury. He wasn’t.

Lieser: No. While they certainly need to extract themselves from Trubisky, they rushed it by declining a contract option that was extremely low-risk and would’ve saved them money if they need him in 2021. The Bears won’t have their next aspiring franchise quarterback on the field until the 2022 opener at the soonest, so they need a bridge. Financially, they now need quarterback Nick Foles to win and hold the job for two seasons — something he has never done.

Potash: Yes. It wasn’t worth the $24 million risk if Trubisky were injured in 2020 to have him signed for 2021 — that’s an expensive insurance policy. If Trubisky blossoms into a star in 2020, the Bears can franchise tag him or sign him to a long-term deal. But the bar is high — showing promise won’t be enough to keep Trubisky around for 2021. He’ll have to be great.