The Bears Keep Solving for the Wrong Variable
The Bears keep changing quarterbacks. The stronger evidence points to a cycle of short development windows, staff resets and uneven support — not one cursed position.
By The Standard
In this articleThe Standard take
The Standard take
The Bears' quarterback problem is best described as a development-system problem compounded by scouting misses, not proof that one cursed position defeats Chicago. Young passers repeatedly entered short evaluation windows, coaching changes and uneven protection. That pattern is real; the available evidence cannot assign a clean causal percentage to any one factor.
Evidence rating: Emerging. This rating holds unless A complete league-wide comparison showing that early coaching changes, protection and rebuild order do not predict young-quarterback development would weaken the systems reading.
Key Findings
Evidence: Emerging- Chicago's passing-production pattern persists across many players and regimes.
- Recent first-round quarterbacks repeatedly encountered major staff or scheme changes early in their rookie contracts.
- Protection and supporting-cast quality interact with quarterback behavior; sack totals cannot be assigned to one unit alone.
- Scouting misses and small-sample variance remain credible competing explanations.
- The changes beginning in 2025 create a live test of the system argument rather than proof it has already won.
What this does not prove: The sample is small: NFL teams draft only a few first-round quarterbacks over decades.
The Standard take
The Bears' quarterback problem is best described as a development-system problem compounded by scouting misses, not proof that one cursed position defeats Chicago. Young passers repeatedly entered short evaluation windows, coaching changes and uneven protection. That pattern is real; the available evidence cannot assign a clean causal percentage to any one factor.
The Bears are the only NFL franchise without a 4,000-yard or 30-touchdown passing season. That establishes an unusual outcome across eras. It does not, by itself, explain the outcome. Pro Bowls, draft position and yardage records are result measures; they cannot distinguish bad evaluation, bad development, injuries or plain variance.
The cleaner test is to examine what happened around recent first-round quarterbacks. Mitchell Trubisky was drafted in 2017 under John Fox, then received a new head coach and system after his rookie season. Justin Fields was drafted in 2021 by Ryan Pace and Matt Nagy; both were dismissed after his rookie year, placing his development under a new general manager, head coach and coordinator. Caleb Williams arrived first overall in 2024 and experienced a head-coaching change during his rookie season.
This is a Chicago case study with a broader Performance Science question: when organizations keep replacing the visible operator, which parts of the system remain untested?
Changing schemes changes terminology, reads, footwork and the timing between quarterback and receivers. That makes continuity a plausible developmental input. It does not make continuity sufficient. Joe Flacco played through repeated coordinator changes and remained productive. Successful quarterbacks can also create the stability later used to explain their success. That reverse-causation problem prevents a tidy “continuity causes quarterbacks” verdict.
The defensible claim is narrower: repeated resets consume finite practice and evaluation time inside a rookie contract. They make it harder to tell whether a young passer is failing, learning or simply translating again.
Williams was sacked a franchise-record 68 times in 2024. Chicago's line finished 24th in Pro Football Focus's end-of-season ranking and allowed 180 pressures on 682 pass plays, but the same analysis noted that four starters graded above 70. The sacks were not solely an offensive-line statistic; quarterback processing, play design, separation and game state contributed.
Chicago then invested heavily in the 2025 line, adding Joe Thuney, Drew Dalman and Jonah Jackson. PFF ranked the rebuilt group fourth entering that season. That is a useful natural experiment, not a settled verdict. If performance stabilizes with better protection and coaching continuity, the systems thesis gains weight. If it does not, evaluation and player-specific explanations gain weight.
Chairman George McCaskey has described himself as “just a fan” rather than a football evaluator. For years the general manager reported through a business-side team president before the structure changed in 2022. Those facts establish a governance model; they do not prove ownership caused a specific interception or failed draft pick.
They do help explain the incentive cycle. A new coach inherits a quarterback selected by somebody else. A new general manager has more patience when choosing a new quarterback than when extending the previous regime's choice. Each reset can be individually rational while the sequence repeatedly shortens development windows.
Key findings
- Chicago's passing-production pattern persists across many players and regimes.
- Recent first-round quarterbacks repeatedly encountered major staff or scheme changes early in their rookie contracts.
- Protection and supporting-cast quality interact with quarterback behavior; sack totals cannot be assigned to one unit alone.
- Scouting misses and small-sample variance remain credible competing explanations.
- The changes beginning in 2025 create a live test of the system argument rather than proof it has already won.
The sample is small: NFL teams draft only a few first-round quarterbacks over decades. Trubisky being chosen before Patrick Mahomes is strong evidence of an evaluation error, and some quarterbacks may not have succeeded in any environment. Stable organizations are also partly stable because they win, which makes comparisons with Kansas City or Green Bay vulnerable to reverse causation.
Most organizational evidence is observational. Private draft grades, medical information, meeting-room performance and ownership deliberations are unavailable. A narrative that explains every failed quarterback after the fact would be another form of quarterback mythology.
What would change our mind
A complete league-wide comparison showing that early coaching changes, protection and rebuild order do not predict young-quarterback development would weaken the systems reading. Sustained Chicago failure under stable coaching, strong protection and a credible receiving group would shift weight toward evaluation. Sustained production under those conditions would strengthen the system explanation.
Sources
- Courtney Cronin, “Assessing Chicago's All-Time First-Round Quarterbacks,” ESPN (2024): https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39780730/chicago-bears-all-first-round-quarterbacks
- “Chicago Bears All-Time Draft History,” Pro-Football-Reference: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/draft.htm
- Adam Hoge, “Bears' George McCaskey Needs to Be More Than ‘Just a Fan,’” NBC Chicago (2022): https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/nbcsports/bears-george-mccaskey-needs-to-be-more-than-just-a-fan/2725933/
- Lester Wiltfong Jr., “Chicago Bears Sackwatch: 2024 Year in Review,” Windy City Gridiron (2025): https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2025/1/16/24339074/chicago-bears-sackwatch-2024-year-in-review-and-historical-perspective-caleb-williams
- Zoltán Buday, “2025 NFL Offensive Line Rankings,” Pro Football Focus (2025): https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-2025-nfl-offensive-line-rankings
- Jamison Hensley, “Continuity Is Key: Joe Flacco Has Had More Coordinators Than Any NFL QB Since 2012,” ESPN (2017): https://www.espn.com/blog/baltimore-ravens/post/_/id/33436/continuity-is-key-joe-flacco-has-had-more-coordinators-than-any-nfl-qb-since-2012
Built By
Editorial Operating System v1.0Creator
Erik Chambers
Architecture
Founder, Creator & Editorial Architect
AI Assisted
No
Human Reviewed
Yes
Evidence Reviewed
In progress
Last Updated
September 26, 2026
Confidence
Evergreen high/10
Research Status
Living investigation
We do not claim perfection. We promise transparency. Every investigation shows its work — the question, the evidence, the tools, the humans, and the updates.
Editorial Transparency
This article contains a combination of reporting, publicly available research, and editorial analysis.
Analysis and interpretation. Facts are sourced; conclusions are the author's. Evidence before opinion — facts require sources, analysis requires transparency, opinions require labels.
Meet the creator
Erik Chambers
Founder, Creator & Editorial Architect
Erik originated the central idea, directed the investigation, reviewed the evidence, and approved the final published work.
Read the founder profile →Challenge This
We welcome disagreement
A different way to read the evidence. Research that points in another direction. Where specialists diverge.
Loading challenges…
Submit a challenge
Sign in to submit a challenge. All submissions are reviewed before appearing publicly.
Comments
Ask A Question
What would you ask an editor about this piece?
Reader questions feed our coverage map. The most-asked ones become our next investigations.
Continue Exploring
Guided by the evidenceWhere should this take you next?
Part of a cluster
Chicago Bears Systems
Why do the Bears keep producing the same result with different people?
See the whole clusterThe Bears Keep Solving for the Wrong Variable
A composite 0–100 measure of how well this investigation meets the Second City Standard. Scores are auditable — every point comes from the criteria below.
Composite
—
of 100
This investigation is queued for editorial scoring. No score has been assigned yet — the absence of a number is not a judgment on the evidence.
The Standard
· Editorial verdictBased on the evidence presented,
Second City Standard believes The Bears keep changing quarterbacks. The stronger evidence points to a cycle of short development windows, staff resets and uneven support — not one cursed position.
Remaining uncertainty: Awaiting a final written verdict from the editorial desk.
The Standard · Second City Standard
Continue The Investigation
· Never a dead endThis investigation is one thread. Pull the next one — every path below is another investigation, another question, or another discipline applied to the same problem.
One weekly email: an evidence-rated training idea, a sourced frontier question, and a Chicago note.
Free. Sign-ups are saved now — we'll email you when the first issue goes out.
No spam. Leave any time. Read our privacy policy.