Why Nick Foles Is Still a Better Option for the Bears Than Mitchell Trubisky

This past Sunday, the Chicago Bears fell to 5-3. They have lost two games in a row, and quarterback Nick Foles hasn't played particularly well since being inserted as the starter. In fact, Chicago is just 2-3 in games that Foles has started this season.

There also seems to be a lack of chemistry—or perhaps trust—between Foles and head coach Matt Nagy. The two haven't always appeared to be on the same page, something at which the third-year coach has hinted.

"The communication thing—great teams communicate well, and that is something we're working toward," Nagy said, per Jason Lieser of the Chicago Sun-Times.

Unsurprisingly, this has led some to suggest that Chicago should go back to Mitchell Trubisky at quarterback.

"Nick Foles is not a starting quarterback in the league," former NFL coach Rex Ryan said on ESPN's Get Up.

Here's the problem with potentially turning back to Trubisky. Whiles Foles might not be a high-level NFL stater, neither is Trubisky. If he was, the Bears wouldn't have pulled the plug on the 2017 first-round pick in order to test-drive Foles.

Trubisky was fantastic in the 2020 season-opener. He passed for 242 yards and three touchdowns while leading a comeback against the Detroit Lions. In his next two games, though, he was borderline awful. He completed 31-of-50 pass attempts for 318 yards with three touchdowns and three interceptions in Weeks 2 and 3 before he was pulled for Foles—who led his own comeback over the Atlanta Falcons.

Trubisky didn't have a passer rating over 78 in either game.

While Foles has not been fantastic, he has at least completed more than 60 percent of his passes—64.8 percent, to be exact. Trubisky has completed just over 59 percent of his throws this season and has a completion rate under 64 percent for his career. Consistency is not his strong suit.

And that lack of consistency is a major issue for a Bears team that can win games with its eighth-ranked scoring defense. A game-manager should be enough to make Chicago competitive, but Trubisky has repeatedly struggled to manage games.

Chicago has seen three-plus years of Trubisky, so the decision to go with Foles wasn't a rash one. The former North Carolina product's biggest asset is his athleticism, something Troy Aikman referenced during the Week 8 loss to the New Orleans Saints.

"The things that they miss with him not being the quarterback is his ability to create plays on the ground," Aikman said during the Fox broadcast (h/t Adam Jahns).

Running ability shouldn't be a primary selling point for a fourth-year quarterback who doesn't operate as a dual-threat. Suggesting that it is, essentially admits that passing is Trubisky's weakness.

Trubisky isn't Michael Vick or Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen. And Chicago should not be basing its offense around his legs. Nagy's offense is based on more traditional dropback passing, and Foles remains the better option to run it.

Foles has completed fewer than 60 percent of his passes only twice this season, against Atlanta and the Carolina Panthers. Both games were Chicago victories. While his presnap management and communication with Nagy may be problematic, Foles has delivered more consistent results during plays.

And Foles' playoff experience must be considered as well. At 5-3, Chicago should hope to make the postseason this year. Trubisky has played in one playoff game, while Foles has proved himself on the NFL's biggest stage.

While the NFL is certainly a what-have-you-done-lately league, it would be irresponsible to discount Foles' Super Bowl MVP performance. If and when the Bears reach the postseason, which quarterback are the players more likely to rally behind?

At minimum, the Bears need to continue riding with Foles for the immediate future. They have seen him for all of five starts. They've seen Trubisky for more than three years, and that's what led them to start Foles in the first place