Chicago Bears Q&A: Are they ‘tanking’ this season? What role will N’Keal Harry play? What about a deal at the trade deadline?

The Chicago Bears have a short work week with the Washington Commanders coming to Soldier Field on Thursday night, but there’s still plenty of time for Brad Biggs to go through the weekly Bears mailbag.

Certainly nobody with the Bears is willing to say this and I suspect you and the other journalists are also afraid to break this egg, but isn’t the reality that the Bears had planned on tanking this season to end up with a high draft position to grab one of the many highly regarded quarterbacks next year?

There’s no question this is a rebuilding year with the Bears letting their best receiver go in free agency and subsequently trading their best defensive linemen. But despite ample cap space, the very limited moves to obtain serious upgrades on the offensive and defensive lines and especially a real playmaker at wide receiver certainly seem to suggest that the new GM and coach had come into their position believing that Justin Fields was not the answer at quarterback and wanting a low finish for a high draft pick to start over next spring. Even though the Bears would never admit this, doesn’t it appear clear that they are simply playing out this season with Fields and looking toward the future? — David L.

I answered a question in last week’s mailbag about the failure to add a higher-profile wide receiver during the offseason, and the list of players they could have targeted was hardly robust. As I pointed out, the biggest moves involving wide receivers were blockbuster trades, and I can understand Bears general manager Ryan Poles wanting to keep his top draft picks for 2023 after inheriting a job in which he didn’t have a first-round selection this year. You reference the Bears allowing Allen Robinson to leave via free agency. Robinson wanted out, and free agency, as I always have maintained, is a two-way street. Based on his production thus far for the Los Angeles Rams, maybe that was the best move by Poles too.

Contrary to what you suggest, the Bears did not have a lot of salary-cap space last offseason, especially compared with the rest of the league. In order to reboot their cap room for 2023 and beyond, they made decisions to eat some dead money this year, further reducing their 2022 space.

I get it, it’s cool to throw around terms like “tanking” to determine the motivation behind every move. How many wins would the 2-3 Bears have right now if Khalil Mack were on the roster? Probably two or three. Mack’s presence wasn’t going to make or break this season and it wasn’t going to fix the long-standing problem at Halas Hall: The offense is a mess.

I don’t think Poles and coach Matt Eberflus took the job with tanking in mind. I think they took it with an agreement they would try to build up the Bears the right way and not seek shortcuts or quick fixes. The previous regime and a lot of folks in town bought into the idea the last few years that the roster was far better than it was. The organization — from top to bottom — deluded itself into thinking it had a team that could push for a championship. The Bears got old, they got tight against the salary cap and they did so with a woeful offense.

[ [Don’t miss] Chicago Bears’ Thursday night game against the Washington Commanders is on Prime Video. Here’s how to watch. ]

Poles and Eberflus need to see what answers for the future they can discover this season. A real evaluation of Fields is required. He wasn’t good in the first four games. He was improved in Sunday’s 29-22 loss in Minnesota. There are 12 more games to play and a lot of action to consider. We’ll see where it heads.

I’m not convinced, even after Sunday, Justin Fields is the answer at quarterback. Hypothetically, if correct, and the Bears are picking in the top five or 10 in the draft, do they go for a quarterback in this abundant QB draft? Or trade down and add multiple picks to address other deficiencies like O-line, wide receiver, linebacker, edge rusher, defensive backs? — Jim F.

I was scanning social media Monday morning as I traveled back from Minneapolis and came across a tweet from a reporter who referenced the strength of the 2023 quarterback draft class and I chuckled. I passed it along to a national scout I chat with regularly, and we had a bit of a laugh. I’m not sure the 2023 class is as strong as some believe it will be. Does that mean there won’t be excellent prospects who emerge? I’m not saying that. But it’s the second week of October, a lot of college football remains to be played and the evaluators I chat with aren’t head over heels about the upcoming prospects or the depth of the class.

“Loaded like the 2021 class,” was one reply the national scout sent me.

[ [Don’t miss] Column: Chicago Bears have been nothing short of ugly on offense — despite what OC Luke Getsy says ]

I don’t believe anyone is sold on Fields yet, but he was better against the Vikings and there’s a lot of football left to play this season. As far as keep the pick or trade the pick, it’s way too premature to get into that. I will make two points. First, the idea of trading down is only an idea unless you have a team willing to pay your price. Second, when you look at a roster like the Bears have that’s short on high-end talent, I always think it’s a good idea to keep the highest pick you have to try to get a difference-maker. Can you still get a difference-maker by trading down? Of course. But the entire first round is a crapshoot and the Bears need more elite players, so staying put is always my first inclination.

What are the benefits to trading Roquan Smith vs. compensatory draft pick formula if the Bears let him walk in free agency? — @sfgore

Well, trading him before the deadline would get the Bears a draft pick in 2023. A compensatory pick for losing Smith in free agency — which would not be guaranteed if GM Ryan Poles is a big spender in free agency next year — would not come until 2024. I doubt the Bears will entertain the idea of trading Smith in the next few weeks. Offloading their best player would make it very difficult to sell the idea of culture in the locker room for the remainder of the season. The players need to feel like the team is doing everything it can to win every week. Dealing away Smith for a draft pick would make it clear the team is not doing everything it can to win now, and that would create a stir in the locker room.

This might not make sense to everyone, but this dynamic is real and I would wish coach Matt Eberflus good luck in selling a message that players need to bust their butts every day if the team were to trade Smith. Why not see how Smith evolves in this scheme, which is still new to him, and consider your options at the end of the season, when the Bears will have cap space and cash? It’s not like they have a linebacker ready to step into his place.

With N’Keal Harry coming off injured reserve, what role do we see him having? And how does this impact Velus Jones? — @lee_davies86

That’s a good question. For starters, I don’t think Harry being an option affects Jones. Harry could cut into playing time for Dante Pettis, Ihmir Smith-Marsette or even Equanimeous St. Brown a little. I don’t think he takes snaps from Jones, whom I will answer a question about next. What can Harry do? Who knows? He suffered a high ankle sprain in the second week of training camp, so where he fits is a bit of a question even for the coaching staff.

[ [Don’t miss] Will wide receiver N’Keal Harry give the Chicago Bears offense a boost? ‘We’ll see how he picks it up.’ ]

Harry has a big body, and that’s something the Bears are lacking in their receiving corps with the exception of St. Brown and tight end Cole Kmet. The thing is, Harry wasn’t able to use his frame and physical nature to consistently make contested catches when he was with the New England Patriots. That was one of his major shortcomings as a failed first-round pick there. If he can make those plays with some regularity for the Bears, he ought to be able to find a niche in the offense. But what that would look like, I’d just be making up stuff because I haven’t seen him do a whole lot.

What is it going to take for the Bears to start using Velus Jones more on offense? He got a touchdown on his first touch! — Gator, Glendale Heights

I view Jones as a bit of a gadget player right now, and I imagine the package of plays for him will grow slowly from week to week. He was a physical runner on the fly sweep when he took the short pass (extended handoff) from Justin Fields and outraced the Vikings defense to the goal line. That was a great play and it was well-blocked. The Bears need to find ways to get him the ball in space and see what he can do with his unique combination of speed and strength. But he missed so much practice time that I wonder if the timing and rhythm required — rhythm has been a huge problem in the passing game as a whole — is there yet for him to do a lot.

How likely do you think it is for Ryan Poles to trade for D.J. Moore given the Bears’ cap situation and considering that it would help Justin Fields develop? Buffalo got Stefon Diggs for Josh Allen and it seemed to help him significantly. — @jimjennings45

I’ll tell you what, social media doesn’t waste any time cooking up some juicy trade ideas. Moore is a really good player. He’s not Diggs. I imagine the Carolina Panthers, if they become a seller, would be more interested in trading Robbie Anderson. I think Poles will get aggressive at some point, but I don’t think it will be in Year 1. I don’t think he’s looking for quick fixes, and I think he’d rather try to draft and develop wide receivers — plural — than send a good amount of draft capital to get a player. If the Panthers are thinking about drafting a quarterback in April, wouldn’t it be a good idea for them to keep Moore? If Moore was made available, I think some receiver-needy teams with playoff aspirations might be willing to pay more than the Bears.

Why does the defense wait until the second half to become serviceable? — @mayhem_is_back

That’s a question the Bears are asking themselves because they’ve played poorly in the first half and created deficits that are problematic with their offensive shortcomings. The Green Bay Packers scored three touchdowns in the second quarter in Week 2, and the Vikings steamrolled the Bears on their first three possessions Sunday for 21 points. That accounts for 42 of the 80 points the Bears have allowed in the first half this season. The Arizona Cardinals also have allowed 80 first-half points, and the only team to give up more is the Seattle Seahawks (82).

“We obviously have to do a better job in the first half,” Matt Eberflus said Monday. “We’ve got to execute better in the first half, certainly on defense. And that’s been something that we have to address going forward, so we will do that.”

[ [Don’t miss] Column: Chicago Bears’ loss to the Minnesota Vikings — after a brutal start and a spirited comeback — is ‘hard to swallow’ ]

What does that entail? We’ll see. It’s obvious the Bears’ game plan to try to limit Vikings wide receiver Justin Jefferson didn’t work from the start. He had seven receptions for 75 yards in the first quarter. The defense did a better job after that, so maybe that boils down to flawed game strategy and a decent adjustment. We’ll see if it’s something the Bears can clean up because they have been good in the second half and have finished well, but they need to start better to give their offense a better chance.

While the Bears have struggled (mightily at times) but still having been competitive in each game, are you resigned that they’ll go with what they have or do you see them making a move before the trade deadline? — @jdecicco54

Ryan Poles has made it clear he’s constantly considering every potential option to make the roster better. That being said, I can’t think of why he would want to be a buyer at the trade deadline and fork over 2023 draft capital for players who would have to learn a new scheme midseason. Frankly, I’m surprised multiple people have asked about this.

What happened to Robert Quinn? Nothing the first year. Single-season record in sacks the next year. Nothing the following year. I’m sure he faced double teams, chips and other strategies last year. Is it the lack of a threat on the opposite side? — @stephen03885032

This was the most popular question in the mailbag this week, and I’m not sure there is a clear answer. I have a few thoughts. First, I would point out the Bears didn’t have a great threat opposite Quinn last year after Khalil Mack was injured in October and lost for the season. Historically, it has been a while since Quinn has had major pass-rushing production in consecutive seasons. He hasn’t had double-digit sacks in back-to-back seasons since 2013-14. Why that is, I don’t know.

I’d point out the Vikings were intent on getting Kirk Cousins out of the pocket Sunday. They used a lot of quarterback bootlegs to move the pocket and give Cousins clear throwing lanes. When he was in the pocket, the ball was coming out pretty quickly. Cousins isn’t known for holding the ball in the pocket long.

Before the Vikings game, the Bears were doing such a lousy job of stopping the run that there simply weren’t a lot of opportunities to get after the passer. I believe the New York Giants had six drop-backs in Week 4. That’s not a lot of chances for sacks. That remains the biggest issue for Quinn, Trevis Gipson and Dominique Robinson. They’re not getting a lot of at-bats when it comes to pinning their ears back and going after the quarterback.

I also should point out Quinn is getting a lot of extra attention from opponents this season. Add it all up and he’s not producing sacks like he did last season. Maybe he will have more chances Thursday night against Washington Commanders quarterback Carson Wentz.