Researching Whether Playing Glennon Beyond 0-2 Start Is Worth It

Predictably the Chicago Bears are already staring an early end to their season. Their schedule is stacking against them. Their visit to Tampa Bay against the Buccaneers holds great importance. If they lose, they have games against the Steelers and Packers shortly following. The odds of getting a win during that stretch? Poor. So that begs the question. Would there be any reason to playing Mike Glennon again if they lose Sunday? The entire sales pitch built around the 28-year old by this Bears regime was that he gives them the best chance to win right now. That kind of loses its appeal if he fails to deliver. Sure two games does not always a season make. That's fair. At the same time holding out Mitch Trubisky would feel more futile than ever. So it might be good to consult the history books in this case. Is there any instance of a team having a top rookie QB and holding him out despite an 0-2 start? If so, did it matter for the team that season?

Playing Mike Glennon beyond 0-2 start would be pointless

To get a proper understanding of the situation, I dug deep into the history of the draft. The focus was on quarterbacks taken in the top two spots, of which Trubisky is a member. Since the 1970 merger there have been 30 names taken that high prior to this year. Here's a breakdown of the information. All told 21 of those picks started for their teams right away. The other 9 of those picks did not. Of those 9 picks, 3 of them did not start despite their teams beginning the year at least 0-2. They were Donovan McNabb in 1999, Carson Palmer in 2003 and JaMarcus Russell in 2007. This brings up two questions. Did holding the rookie out help the team have success? Did the extended time off the field lead to the player becoming better down the line?

Donovan McNabb

• Waited 9 games
• Team finished 5-11
• 6x Pro Bowler

Carson Palmer

• Waited 16 games
• Team finished 8-8
• 2x Pro Bowler

JaMarcus Russell

• Waited 15 games
• Team finished 4-12
• Bust

Based on this data available, the conclusions to be drawn are clear enough. It neither mattered that the rookies were held out nor that any of them sat out longer than the others. Palmer sat the longest and made two Pro Bowls for his original team. McNabb sat the fewest and went to six while getting his team to a Super Bowl. Russell sat one less than Palmer and was one of the biggest busts in NFL history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CJn_O8LrR0 All three teams failed to make the playoffs, so their decisions to sit the rookies came to nothing. There is no proof to be had that sitting them was in any way more or less beneficial to their careers. Thus was there really any point in doing so? Therein lay the argument. If the Bears start 0-2 with a loss to Tampa on Sunday, their chances of making the playoffs drop to just over 11%. At that point their reasons to keep Trubisky on the bench will be purely based on how delusional head coach John Fox is that Glennon can still lead them to where he wants to go.