The Chicago Bears have 10 days between games after losing to the Washington Commanders on Thursday night.
Before the Bears head to Foxborough, Mass., to take on the New England Patriots on Monday night, the Tribune’s Brad Biggs tackles some questions at the “mini-bye” in his weekly Bears mailbag.
Advertisement
Why is there such a negative reaction to the Bears right now? They are 2-4 and I think most fans probably would have expected that record after six games, figuring there would be a loss to San Francisco in Week 1 and a win over Washington in the most recent game. Why have expectations been so poorly shaped for a team so clearly at the beginning stages of a rebuilding process? — Dan, Bensenville
You make some valid points, and I believe, from a wins and losses perspective, the team is right about where anyone rationally evaluating the roster would have expected it to be six games into a new regime. The greatest frustration probably lies with the ongoing ineffectiveness of the offense, which isn’t unique to this coaching staff. The Bears have struggled on offense for the longest time, and the bar for improvement is so low that even marginal improvement would be notable. Instead, the offense is stumbling along and you get overreactions to things such as a good half with three productive drives.
Advertisement
Friend of the program Rob Demovsky, the pride of Rolling Meadows High School, has covered the Green Bay Packers for a long time. He noted Sunday that the 107 points the Packers have scored this season is their lowest output during any six-game stretch of starts for Aaron Rodgers.
That’s an average of 17.83 points. Forget six-game stretches with that kind of scoring production for the Bears. They have averaged less than 17.83 points over the course of an entire season 14 times since 1993, including 2016, 2017 and 2019. They’re currently averaging 15.5 points.
This is a great way of pointing out that offensive expectations for the Packers and Bears are in different worlds. The hope was quarterback Justin Fields would take a significant step forward in his second season and with new coaches and a new system. That hasn’t happened yet, although offensive coordinator Luke Getsy is adamant that progress and development are happening.
That, in my mind, is the root of fan discontent, and it’s understandable. I think the vast majority of Bears fans would be relatively pleased if the team was 2-4 and losing high-scoring games with the offense showing some flair and explosive plays. Maybe that will begin to happen down the stretch, but right now it’s a slog for the Bears offense.
[ [Don’t miss] Chicago Bears defense at the mini-bye: What’s working, what’s not — and what’s next ]
Why is Cole Kmet not thrown to in the red zone? I know Justin Fields did throw to him in the first quarter via a defensive lineman’s helmet. They have never connected in the red zone. Why is that? — Bill F., Waynesboro, Va.
I would expand the question to this: Why isn’t Kmet being thrown to anywhere on the field? He has 15 targets through six games (2.5 per game) a year after he was targeted 93 times (5.5 average). He has 10 receptions for 116 yards and is one of the most underutilized targets in the passing game. I say “one of” because before Darnell Mooney was targeted 12 times in the loss to the Washington Commanders last week, the ball was not going his direction enough.
The offense failed to use Kmet in the red zone last season, and it wasn’t simply because the previous coaching staff really liked using Jimmy Graham as a threat near the goal line. The Bears simply didn’t do a good enough job of getting him the ball. Kmet was targeted 12 times in the red zone in 2021 and had five receptions for 36 yards and no touchdowns. Inside the 10-yard line, he had three targets and no catches.
This year Kmet has two targets in the red zone and has one reception for minus-3 yards. Some of the blame falls on offensive coordinator Luke Getsy and the coaching staff and some of it falls on quarterback Justin Fields. Kmet was open in the flat for what should have been a short gain in Week 5 against the New York Giants, and instead of attempting the pass, Fields tried to scramble and was dropped for a sack.
Advertisement
Kmet got a little more action last season in games Fields didn’t start, but the numbers were relatively close. In 10 starts by Fields, Kmet averaged 5.2 targets and 3.2 catches. In the seven games started by Andy Dalton or Nick Foles, Kmet averaged 5.9 targets and 4.0 catches.
Kmet won’t become an elite pass-catching tight end, but he has enough talent to be far more productive in the passing game and he’s a big target with generally reliable hands that Fields needs to find in the middle of the field more regularly. He also has been serially underused in the red zone, where the offense has had well-documented issues the last couple of weeks. One would imagine this is something Getsy and the offensive coaches have looked at closely during the mini-bye.
Did anyone ask Justin Fields who the secondary target on the last pass play of the Washington game was? David Montgomery was open in the left flat by 3-4 yards, but Fields never looked his way. Someone has got to coach Fields that he has to go through his progressions before pulling the ball down and taking off running. You would think that going through a good program like Ohio State that he would have been coached on how to read through his progressions. — Ron N., Menomonee Falls, Wis.
You are correct that Montgomery was able to slip out of the backfield uncovered. He was to Fields’ left, and if you watch replays, Fields was looking right to his first read, Darnell Mooney, at the snap. Mooney was open, too, when you consider how compacted the field is near the goal line, and if he had caught the pass without a bobble, it’s a touchdown, the Bears win and we’re not left to wonder what might have been.
“Montgomery is the fifth read on that play — he is the last read,” Fields said after the game. “In reality, if I’m being real with you, there is a 5% chance you’re going to get back to him. He’s the last read on that. It’s boom, boom, boom, like he’s last read on that.”
I don’t have an issue with what Fields did on this play. In fact, it’s an example of what he needs to do more often: See the initial read and make the throw on time. If Mooney is blanketed on the play or jammed at the line of scrimmage to the point he’s taken out from the snap, then Fields needs to read his progressions — quickly — to determine another option.
Advertisement
But throwing the pass here — and not scanning backside when Mooney was open — is not a bad play by the quarterback. I agree there are many other instances of him needing to get from his first read to his second and sometimes third, but asking a second-year quarterback to get to his fifth read near the goal line in a situation like that isn’t reasonable.
Assuming Justin Fields continues to struggle throughout the year (a fair assumption given his growing body of work), is it realistic that Bears brass would be willing to move on from him next year, possibly in the draft? His lack of growth, including his inability to spot open receivers during his progression and his lack of accuracy, is alarming. The Bears stuck with Mitch Trubisky too long and paid the price. Hopefully, Ryan Poles won’t repeat this mistake. — Jim A., Plymouth, Minn.
The Bears fully planned to move on from Trubisky at the start of the 2020 season. The problem was the quarterback they traded for to replace him, Nick Foles, was a dud during training camp. Had Foles arrived as the quarterback the Bears hoped he would be — the one who led the 2017 Philadelphia Eagles on a magical postseason run — Trubisky would have been on the bench after three seasons as a starter (two under Matt Nagy and his staff). So I don’t know that I would say they stuck with the 2017 first-round draft pick too long. The bigger issues were that Trubisky didn’t develop in the offense the way the team hoped and that Foles really struggled when given an opportunity to replace him.
In regard to Fields, that’s a good question and his performance and growth over the final 11 games should be the biggest factor in a critical decision for Poles and the organization. There are many other elements to this as well. Will any quarterbacks the Bears like be available via free agency or the trade market? What will the draft class look like in relation to where the team is picking? How will Poles and his staff along with coach Matt Eberflus assess the team’s other needs? If the Bears draft a quarterback in Round 1 — or trade up to draft one — they would be using resources that take away from their ability to improve at wide receiver, along the offensive line and on defense. One reason the Bears are not better on the O-line and at receiver right now is they had to spend valuable draft resources to trade up and select Fields.
I’ve heard from a good handful of people around the league whom I trust, and there are two schools of thought on this. One camp says move on as quickly as possible and draft a quarterback. The other camp notes that sometimes new regimes prefer to wait a little while before taking their shot at a quarterback. That is for two reasons. First, it gives them time and opportunities to improve the roster so when a quarterback is added, there’s a better chance of success. Second, some believe that once a regime takes a shot on a quarterback, the clock starts ticking on the evaluation of that regime. In other words, if Fields continues to struggle, a defense for the new regime can be, “Well, he was drafted by the people who are no longer here.” Once Poles and Eberflus select a quarterback, he becomes “their guy” and there’s no one to scapegoat if the quarterback struggles like so many do.
That’s a long way of explaining that a whole bunch of factors will go into a decision that will shape the offseason plan at Halas Hall. In Philadelphia, Jalen Hurts has taken a big step forward in his third season. The Eagles have a top-notch offensive line and made a concerted effort to improve talent at the skill positions in the offseason. A lot of really smart people I know doubted Hurts entering this season. He has been better than expected. Maybe that’s a path Fields can follow. We’ll have to see how he performs the rest of this season and then what Poles and Co. decide to do.
Advertisement
Justin Fields holds the ball longer before he throws a pass than any other QB in the league on average, which puts a lot of pressure on the offensive line. Is that just him not seeing the field or are his receivers not getting separation? Both? — @mike__chicago
It’s a combination of factors, including the ones you referenced. Fields needs to become better at diagnosing coverages pre- and post-snap. Another factor is his immense athletic talent allows him to hold the ball much longer than less mobile quarterbacks because he can maneuver around the pocket and avoid pressure. When Fields starts to buy time to wait for plays to develop downfield more often instead of just pulling the ball down and running, more big plays will begin to happen.
Matt Eberflus implied changes could come over the mini bye week. Where could these changes come from since the team lacks talent basically everywhere? — @chibears24_7
I would start with punt returner. I can’t imagine the Bears will run rookie Velus Jones Jr. back out there Monday night at New England. He muffed two punts in the last three games and both miscues were turnovers that proved pivotal. I’m not saying Jones is done for the season as a punt returner. To me, in a best-case scenario, you have him work hard at it during and after practice, and after a few weeks you see if he’s more confident, more sure-handed and ready to make better decisions about which balls need to be caught and which he should let go.
It’s possible the Bears would make a move on the offensive line with some extra time to review and consider options. I don’t know that there is a perfect solution or clear upgrade, but if they’re not getting what they want from a starter, it’s time to give someone else a look.
Wide receiver N’Keal Harry likely will make his Bears debut against his former team, the Patriots, so he will take a little playing time from one or two receivers. The Bears already have shuffled the starting lineup on the defensive line with Armon Watts getting bumped up. They use the linemen in waves, and sometimes playing time is based on matchups. We’ll see what shakes out Monday.
Advertisement
Does Alex Leatherwood have any potential to live up to his draft status? Will he/should he get a shot? — @roykosteve
We won’t be able to answer your first question until we get an answer to your second question: Will he get a shot? I think the Bears made a long play with Leatherwood when they claimed him off waivers from the Las Vegas Raiders, picking up $5.9 million in guarantees that are owed to him. Leatherwood hasn’t had a lot of time on the practice field, but he’s back in the mix after a stint on the non-football illness list.
One reason to believe the Bears will give Leatherwood a shot sooner rather than later is they wouldn’t have committed that kind of money to a player they just wanted to kick the tires on. It’s one thing when a team signs a player off the street or brings in a guy on a minimum deal. I’m not saying the Bears have a huge investment in Leatherwood, but something in their evaluation made them say, “The upside here is definitely worth this money.” Remember, had the Bears not claimed Leatherwood on waivers, they potentially could have signed him as a free agent for much less money. By claiming him, they ensured that none of the teams behind them in the waiver process got him and that no one would outbid them in free agency.
That’s a long way of saying it’s likely we will see Leatherwood in a game. When? I don’t know and I’m not sure how much the coaches have seen from him on the practice field. But Matt Eberflus did suggest last week that personnel changes could be coming.
Should Matt Eberflus consider benching Justin Fields and see what Trevor Siemian can do behind this O-line? What is the stronger commitment to — winning games or Fields’ development? — @mate01701
I don’t foresee the Bears moving Fields to the sideline for performance issues. He’s a young player and if you’ve listened to what the coaches have been saying, they are accentuating the positives and trying to help him grow. If the coaching staff was in a win-or-else predicament, maybe a move would happen, but that’s not where the Bears are right now.
Advertisement
What have you heard regarding N’Keal Harry and his progress on getting up to speed in the offense since coming off IR? — @coletamarri
Harry is back in the mix now that he has returned from injured reserve, and with a full week of practice I imagine there’s a good chance he will make his Bears debut Monday night. It will be interesting to see how much Harry can handle after missing so much time since early August. The timing and rhythm of the passing game has been such an issue this season, and it’s fair to wonder how long it will take him to get on the same page as Justin Fields. But Harry is a big target and the Bears could use someone like that. We’ll see what he can accomplish.
Is there a chance the Bears sign Josh Gordon to their practice squad? Or what reasonable roster adjustments can they make after six weeks to help bolster the pass-catching options? — @lgparlay
The only reason to think the Bears might kick the tires on Gordon is that the Kansas City Chiefs gave him a shot last season when GM Ryan Poles was there. Gordon, 31, was a fantastic player in his prime before suspensions derailed his career. You have to go back to 2018 for the last time he was somewhat productive. He caught 40 passes for 720 yards in 11 games with the Patriots. That was a long time ago. He has a total of 39 receptions in 25 games since. The Chiefs overhauled their wide receiver group in the offseason and chose to do so without Gordon. I think his days as a productive threat are behind him.