As the Chicago Bears prepare for a huge Week 17 game against the Green Bay Packers with major stakes, Brad Biggs’ weekly Bears mailbag is full of questions about how much Sunday’s outcome will influence decisions about the franchise’s future.
Is it an overreaction to see glimpses of the 2007 New York Giants’ Super Bowl run in this team? A hot streak to finish the season and a possible wild-card berth? — @petermartuneac
I’m not sure I would call it an overreaction. That’s more of a glass-half-full — or glass-overflowing — approach. The Giants went 10-6 in 2007 and had a plus-22 point differential. The Bears have a similar plus-21 point differential entering the regular-season finale. That Giants team had a minus-10 turnover differential, and the Bears are currently minus-3. The 2007 Giants are considered one of the worst teams to win the Super Bowl — they upset the undefeated New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. That’s a discussion every team would love to be a part of. The challenge the Giants overcame was winning three playoff games on the road before pulling off one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history by defeating Tom Brady and the Patriots. The Bears have been on a roll and have scored 30 or more points in four consecutive games for the first time since 1965. They’ve won three straight against some positively bad opponents. I don’t know that they’re ready to be road wreckers in the postseason, but they’re in the mix entering Week 17 and that’s a heck of a lot better than anyone figured a month ago. So dare to dream. If the Bears can get into the postseason, anything can happen. That’s what every wild-card team that goes on the road to play as an underdog says.
I see the logic in keeping Mitch Trubisky for 2021 given the options. But without having a terrible season and getting a high draft pick, trading up in the draft (which would be expensive), hoping a good free agent is available (unlikely) or being lucky in late draft rounds, how do the Bears get a good quarterback? — @sonic_brew
That’s the long-running dilemma at Halas Hall, isn’t it? If there was a clear answer and a certain path to finding a franchise quarterback, the Bears would have it made. There isn’t an easy answer to this question. I agree that Trubisky returning in 2021 will be a possibility for the Bears, but unless they use the franchise or transition tag on him — and I think that is unlikely — he will be an unrestricted free agent, and that makes it a two-way street. Before the Bears commit to pursuing Trubisky for next season, they need to completely survey all of the options and gauge the cost and how realistic each one is. One thing I will say is it’s certainly time for the organization to be more aggressive in acquiring potential options at the position. That doesn’t mean having a revolving door of quarterbacks and considering everyone who becomes available, but they need to draft more quarterbacks and that means more than just taking a flier on someone in the sixth or seventh round. The chances of hitting on a mid-round or even a second-round pick are not good, but you’ll never develop a diamond in the rough until you try. The Bears are guilty of not putting enough effort into growing the depth chart at the position.
Even though the Bears rallied from the six-game losing streak to control their own destiny in Week 17, do they make any changes (Ted Phillips, Ryan Pace, Matt Nagy, Chuck Pagano, Mitch Trubisky) based on how Sunday unfolds? Blowout loss, close loss in a shootout, one-and-done playoffs? — @jtbcubs
What I’ve said all along is the Bears evaluate the football operation over the entirety of the season, not three-fourths of it or some other fraction. So Week 17 would play a part in the evaluation whether it’s against the Packers in a game with massive implications or against pick-your-opponent with nothing on the line. At this point, it’s fair to say Nagy is safe moving forward to 2021 in the fourth year of his five-year contract. Even if the Bears lose Sunday, he would have consecutive 8-8 seasons coming off a 12-4 debut season in which he won NFL Coach of the Year honors. Yes, the Bears might fall short of the postseason in back-to-back years, but coaches generally are not fired when they’re eight games above .500 after three seasons. I’m less certain about the status of some of the others, but the Bears have been through bad spells before and Phillips always has survived. He’s not a factor in football operations, so swapping him out for another person at the top of the organization might not make the kind of impact a lot of people envision. Pace certainly is in a much better spot than he was at the beginning of the month, and if Nagy is safe for next season, that could help Pace. Some subscribe to the theory that GMs and coaches need to be tied together. I’m not necessarily in that crowd, but I understand the thinking and in many cases it does make sense. The Bears have made the kind of offensive gains they hoped to see at the start of the season, and as I’ve written several times, the COVID-19 pandemic will be a factor when evaluating front offices across the league.
A lot of mailbag questions have centered around the future of Pagano, and it’s important to realize the defense schematically is very similar to what the team ran under Vic Fangio. I don’t know that Pagano is to blame for some marquee players not having the number of splash plays this season you would expect based on their salaries. The quarterback situation is really a separate conversation because Trubisky is coming out of contract and will have a say in where his future takes him. I don’t know that the outcome of the Packers game will sway the Bears one way or the other. If the Bears win, it’s fair to imagine there would be little in the way of change, but if they lose by 17 points, I don’t know that one game against the top seed in the NFC (which the Packers would nail down with a win) would create the ripple of change some expect if the Bears lose. The Packers entered this season with a superior quarterback, as they have just about every year for the last quarter-century, and they’ve been appreciably better because of the edge they have over the Bears and most other teams at that position. Is that something the Bears should have expected to change during the 2020 season? Probably not.
Will Cordarrelle Patterson be back as No. 2 running back? In my opinion, in his brief time at running back, I prefer Artavis Pierce going forward. — @jojopuppyfish
I imagine the Bears will be interested in bringing Patterson back as the kickoff returner next season, and he has indicated he would like to remain with the team. How much it will take to re-sign him is a good question. Patterson is finishing a two-year, $10 million contract, and with the salary cap projected to dip in 2021, the middle class is going to take a hit. You can probably classify Patterson, even though he’s a Pro Bowl returner, as a member of the NFL’s middle class. What the market will be for him remains to be seen. The Bears had a terrible time with their kickoff return game before adding him in 2019. I tend to think the Bears will consider other options at running back even if Patterson is back, but I would have told you the same thing a year ago. I’m not sure how you or the Bears can judge Pierce’s ability right now. He has had five carries and didn’t have a preseason. He should be in the mix for a backup role next year, and finding a cheap alternative on the depth chart, especially considering the investment in Tarik Cohen, is smart. But the Bears should add some competition and see who stands out. Look what the Jacksonville Jaguars found in free agency with former Illinois State running back James Robinson.
The answer here can’t be “I won’t trade the pick.” If you are the new GM in Jacksonville, what price is high enough to entice you to consider trading out of that No. 1 pick? — @armchairoc
The answer sure as heck could be “I’m not going to consider options for the top pick.” Why would the new general manager of the Jaguars have to listen to offers for the top pick? What if owner Shad Khan instructs his new hire that he’s to select Clemson quarterback Trevor Lawrence and go from there? I imagine most GMs at least would pick up the phone to listen to what teams have to say, but the odds of the Jaguars considering a trade of the pick seem extremely remote. The cost would be a crippling number of high draft picks that would make it extremely difficult for the other team to build around Lawrence after trading for the pick to select him.
What changes will Chuck Pagano have to make from his first game plan this year against the Packers to give the Bears a good chance to win this Sunday? — @jerryf642
The Packers shredded the Bears with the ground game in the initial meeting Nov. 29 at Lambeau Field. Aaron Jones ran for 90 yards and Jamaal Williams had 73 as Green Bay rolled for 182 yards on the ground. Bears defensive lineman Akiem Hicks missed that game with a hamstring injury, and without him — and with nose tackle Eddie Goldman opting out for the season — the Bears got trampled up front. Hicks is healthy now, although the run defense hasn’t been great over the last month. The Bears have to play the run well and put Aaron Rodgers in third-and-long situations. That’s where it all starts. If the Bears can stop the run and put the Packers into third-and-7 or more, that would give them a chance to create havoc with a pass rush that has been inconsistent this season.
Where is the pass rush and will it show up for Sunday’s game? If not, they have no chance. — @jimmcdo83752378
That’s a great question, and it has to be concerning that the Bears had a huge lead in the second half Sunday in Jacksonville and couldn’t generate more consistent pressure on quarterback Mike Glennon, who doesn’t move around well in the pocket. I wish I could tell you if the rush will get to Aaron Rodgers on Sunday, but your guess is as good as mine. The Bears did not sack Rodgers in the first meeting this season, when he completed 21 of 29 passes for 211 yards and four touchdowns. The good news is the Bears sacked him five times in the first meeting in 2019, a 10-3 Packers victory to open the season at Soldier Field, and five times in the Dec. 16, 2018, meeting at Lambeau Field. But the Packers have been terrific in pass protection this season and have allowed only 20 sacks, second-fewest in the league behind the Pittsburgh Steelers (13).
Given his improved level of play, does it make any sense to franchise tag Mitch Trubisky next year given the amount of money the Bears will need to pay him as a short-term stopgap to provide more time to find a long-term solution at quarterback? — @dav264
This is the least likely solution in my mind. I wouldn’t rule it out, but if the Bears have to use a franchise or transition tag on Trubisky, you might as well say goodbye to wide receiver Allen Robinson now because he will be an unrestricted free agent and likely would sign elsewhere. If the Bears are motivated to bring Trubisky back in 2021, the best-case scenario is to get a deal done with him before the franchise tag deadline and then use that mechanism to keep Robinson. Overthecap.com estimates the franchise tag for quarterbacks in 2021 will be $23.5 million, and the Bears ought to be able to sign Trubisky for less than that — but don’t get the idea that he would come cheaply.
How many times in NFL history have teams with a six-game losing streak qualified for the playoffs? Asking for a friend. — Bill B.
The 2014 Carolina Panthers and 1970 Cincinnati Bengals are the last two teams to lose six consecutive games in a season and rally to make the playoffs. The Bengals won the AFC Central with an 8-6 record, and the Panthers won the NFC South at 7-8-1. The Bengals quickly exited the playoffs, getting shut out 17-0 by the Baltimore Colts, while the Panthers pulled off a stunner and beat the Arizona Cardinals 27-16 in the wild-card round.
The Packers were able to pretty much neutralize Derrick Henry on Sunday night. How do you think this will affect Bill Lazor’s game plan for Sunday and what are the keys to get David Montgomery and the running game going? — Scott D., Vernon Hills
The Packers did a nice job swarming to Henry, and he wasn’t able to break off any big runs, finishing with 98 yards on 23 attempts. Add in 55 rushing yards by quarterback Ryan Tannehill, and it’s not like the Packers were great against the run. The 156 yards the Titans had were the third-most the Packers have allowed this season. What happened was the Packers built a huge lead in the second half — 33-14 before the end of the third quarter — and that forced the Titans to ditch the running game. I don’t think it has a big effect on what the Bears do in preparation. The Bears have to be able to run the ball to have success. The Packers rank 14th against the run (113.1 yards per game) and 24th in yards per carry (4.64). The Bears need to limit possessions for Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and steal a possession or two with the defense or special teams. That’s the best path to success. If the Bears can successfully run the ball, it should open the playbook for the play action and bootlegs that Mitch Trubisky has had success with recently.
While I certainly applaud the efforts of the players and coaching staff over the last three weeks, I think a little context is warranted. The defensive showings, or lack thereof, of the Vikings, Lions and Texans this past weekend should force us to look at the Bears’ offensive resurgence with a little more objectivity. The Bears still have only one win this year vs. a playoff team, and the Packers game should be very revealing. Regardless of what happens over the next week or two, I think ownership needs to take a hard look at the roster and the current salary-cap situation and ask themselves some questions. The Packers have been the dominant team in the division for a while now, and over the last six years with Ryan Pace in charge, have the Bears closed the gap? Have they lessened the quarterback deficit? Do they have a young, emerging roster trending in the right direction? I think any unbiased observer would answer no to these questions. The next couple of offseasons are going to be huge, and the Bears need to draft well to get to a better place salary-cap-wise and to lessen their dependence on free agency. To borrow your phrase, does ownership continue to trust Pace to “buy the groceries”? — Chris M., Hermosa Beach, Calif.
That’s a big question — maybe the biggest facing the Bears — and Chairman George McCaskey will have to emerge in the next few weeks and provide an answer and a reasoning for his decision as he chooses the course for the franchise moving into next season. As I said above, I think Matt Nagy is pretty well-positioned to return in 2021. Would the Bears want to fire the GM and start a hiring process in which they’re intent on asking Pace’s replacement to work with Nagy for at least a season? The Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars and Houston Texans have all fired their GMs this season, and the Washington Football Team is in the market for a GM to pair with coach Ron Rivera. You’re looking at a group that is already larger than usual when it comes to GM searches. Those jobs don’t turn over with quite the frequency coaching positions do. Now, just because a bunch of other teams are in the hunt for a new GM isn’t a good reason to keep Pace, but I’m just trying to give you a glimpse at the entire picture. Objectively, the Bears are in a better position now than they were when they hired Pace. In that sense, they’ve closed the gap. But his predecessor, Phil Emery, had the unenviable task of trying to maintain a competitive roster with an aging defense, and that was really an impossibility. I agree the Bears need to draft better, and fortunately they have a first-round draft pick this year after settling their bill with the Raiders for the Khalil Mack trade. They need to find more hits in free agency, and their star players — the guys getting paid lots of money — need to play like stars. Keep an eye on how this shakes out.
If the Bears don’t re-sign Mitch Trubisky, who takes his place? I’m thinking there aren’t any teams out there that would sign him and promise him he will be the starter. Why not offer him a one-year contract with an attractive option for incentives that he could prove himself to be a starter either with the Bears or somewhere else? — Steve D., Chicago
This is certainly one way things could play out. I would be a little surprised if the Bears considered a long-term investment in Trubisky. Maybe they would go to two years, but he certainly hasn’t played at a high enough level for them to go beyond that. The downside to that is the Bears would be guaranteeing they are back in the same situation — needing to figure out what they’re doing at quarterback again at the end of the 2021 or 2022 season. I tend to agree there might not be another team wanting to sign Trubisky to be a starter, but you never know. There could be considerable turnover at the position around the league this offseason. A lot of new GMs will be hired, there will be coaching staff changes and it will be fascinating to see how it all plays out.
Heard on the broadcast Sunday that Roquan Smith would have made an additional $3 million if voted in as a Pro Bowler. Have the Bears ever paid out such incentives in good faith for a player they want to keep (and keep happy) even though such an incentive was not met? — @roybal5598
No. The Bears aren’t in the business of giving away money when a player signed a contract and the stipulations weren’t met. On a few rare occasions, the Bears have not pursued the prorated portion of a signing bonus given to a player who retired early, but that’s not entirely unusual around the league. Smith didn’t miss out on any special incentive in his contract. First-round draft picks selected to the Pro Bowl on the original ballot in any of their first three seasons get a boost in the base salary of their fifth-year option. That’s part of the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement. So the projected 2022 fifth-year option for Smith is a little more than $10 million. Had he been voted to the Pro Bowl, that option year would have kicked up to about $13 million. Will this affect what happens with Smith moving forward? Probably not. He’s eligible for a new contract after this season. I fully expect the Bears to exercise the fifth-year option in Smith’s deal, and it stands to reason they will have a long-term extension in place before the 2022 season. In other words, I don’t think Smith will miss out on $3 million here.
Why don’t the Bears take a shot at seeing if Dwayne Haskins can be developed? — Ken P., Lombard
Haskins, Washington’s first-round pick (No. 15) in 2019, went unclaimed through waivers Tuesday because he was overdrafted coming out of Ohio State, put a lot of bad tape together in 19 starts over the last two years, had preparation issues as a rookie and well-documented issues being a professional this season. Quarterbacks have to operate at a higher level than other players. They’re expected to be the leader of the team, and Haskins fell terribly short of those expectations in Washington. Will he get a second shot? Surely there’s a team out there that at least will give Haskins a look next season, but I’d caution against viewing him as some super-talented former first-round pick who needed only a little humility and a fresh environment. Watch some of his starts. He was really bad. Teams don’t give up on screw-ups who are super talented that quickly. This isn’t just a situation where Haskins went out and partied without a mask on, got caught and fined and then played poorly. There’s way more to it than that, and the biggest issues lead you back to the tape — he struggled mightily on the field.