Several sports columnists, including this one, have written recently about Chicago’s long-standing fascination with whomever happens to be the backup to whichever Bears quarterback happens to be failing at the moment.
Seventy years of this have brought us to rookie Tyson Bagent, who likely will start in place of the injured and average Justin Fields on Sunday against the Raiders. But the current situation has revealed that, although many Bears fans want to see what the backup can do, plenty of others are so emotionally invested in the idea of Fields being great someday that their vision is clouded.
It’s created a massive debate, much of it centering on Bagent-Fields but more than a little on topics that may or may not have to do with the subject at hand. The first hint that something unusual was at work was the reaction to the Sun-Times’ back page on Monday, the day after Bagent filled in for Fields, who had dislocated his thumb during the Bears’ loss to the Vikings.
Bagent struggled at times in the game, but he also led a nine-play, 77-yard drive that pointed to some promise. The back-page headline the next day was “Bagent of Change,’’ reflecting the column I had written about wanting to see more of the rookie and less of Fields. As of Wednesday, that back page had been viewed 1.7 million times on X (formerly Twitter). You would have thought the headline had been “Children are what’s wrong with America.’’
The @suntimes_sports cover, featuring Tyson Bagent, who deserves a real chance to be #DaBears quarterback, by @MorrisseyCST. https://t.co/DQ6GZL0Zkl pic.twitter.com/YP18N9wT7B
— Sun-Times Sports (@suntimes_sports) October 16, 2023
Some fans don’t want to hear that Fields isn’t the quarterback the Bears thought he was going to be when they took him with the 11th pick in the 2021 draft. They want to believe that the athleticism that makes him such a dangerous runner will eventually help him become a good passer. When they realize that that line of thinking doesn’t hold up in the NFL, they blame poor blocking and poor coaching. If it feels like Mitch Trubisky all over again, it’s because it is.
But they also blame me, the Sun-Times, the media and, perhaps given enough time, the written word.
Let’s address some of the criticisms.
Racism — Any suggestion that Fields, who is African American, should be benched in favor of Bagent, who is white, smacks of bigotry, more than a few readers stated.
“Flat out racist’’ one oft-retweeted post read.
If I had treated the white Trubisky better during his four disappointing years with the Bears than I’ve treated Fields during his two-plus years, maybe this charge would have merit. But I was much more critical of Trubisky than I have been of Fields. Eight games into Trubisky’s third season, I wrote that the Bears should start Chase Daniels ahead of him. It took me six games into Fields’ third season to call for a Bagent start.
By the way, Trubisky’s passer rating in Chicago was 87.2. Fields’ is 82.3.
I have no idea if Bagent is any good, but I have a pretty good idea that Fields isn’t good enough. That’s what makes me want to see the kid play. It’s not a vote for Bagent specifically. It’s a vote for anybody else besides Fields. In this case, a vote for the incumbent is a vote for a franchise spinning its wheels at quarterback. If that’s racism, there must be a new definition.
Clicks — The criticism is that the headline and the column were written purely with the idea of attracting as many readers as possible. It’s hard to argue with the basic premise of this because, yes, writers want to be read and newspapers want to sell papers and ads. But the idea that I’m a glutton for clicks would imply that I don’t believe what I write. I’m sure there are columnists out there who purposely choose the most provocative side of an argument, even if they don’t believe it, to attract more readers. I’m not one of them, and the vast majority of writers I know aren’t, either.
It never occurred to me that Monday’s back page would get 1.7 million views. This does occur to me: There won’t be a little something extra in my paycheck this week because of it.
A vendetta against the Bears — In this rendering, I have it out for the Bears. I have it out for the Bears only as much as I have it out for an inept franchise that can’t find a quarterback, can’t hire people who know how to win and can’t get to the playoffs more than six times in the past 28 years.
Meathead journalism — Against the Vikings, Bagent threw a bad interception and lost a strip sack that was returned for a touchdown. How could anyone believe he was the answer to the Bears’ woes at quarterback? Clearly, the critics said, I was pandering to those fans who love a Cinderella story. This one happens to be from Division II Shepherd University in West Virginia.
I wouldn’t care if Bagent came down from quarterback heaven. If he can throw the ball and he’s not named Justin Fields or Mike Glennon or Cade McNown, I want to see him.
Too soon — When will it be long enough to come to the conclusion that Fields can’t play? After this season? After five seasons? Some Bears fans still believe Trubisky will be good, given the chance. They also believe that Jay Cutler was great. The bar is so low after what the Bears have offered them for decades that they can’t see the truth.
You’re old — This one hurts. But to answer the charge: Possibly.
