LOOKING BACK AND PEEKING FORWARD
Our Bears experts analyze the team after its 3-14 season, which resulted in the No. 1 pick in the draft in April
Rank the Bears’ biggest offseason needs.
FINLEY: In order: dominant edge rusher, disruptive ‘‘threetechnique’’ defensive tackle, playmaking weak-side linebacker, reliable wide receiver and the best two starting offensive linemen they can find.
LIESER: They have a million of them, but the line of scrimmage tops the list. This was the feeblest pass rush and most porous pass protection in the NFL. Let’s start with the offensive line — for two reasons: First, it’ll lead to immediate improvement from Justin Fields; second, it’s supposed to be general manager Ryan Poles’ specialty.
POTASH: 1. Defensive line. 2. Right tackle. 3. Wide receiver.
What specifically would you do with the No. 1 overall pick?
PF: Trade it to the Colts for their No. 4 pick, their second-rounder this year and a first-rounder in 2024. (Also, I’d ask if the Colts want to send any veteran defenders over in the trade.) Then I’d draft who’s left between Alabama edge rusher Will Anderson and Georgia defensive tackle Jalen Carter. In terms of landing a high pick next year, there’s no team I’d rather bet against, institutionally, than the Colts. That 2024 pick gives the Bears an insurance policy, too. If Fields struggles in 2023, they would have the ability to draft a quarterback.
JL: The more times the Bears can trade back, the better. If they can get the Colts to give them two first-round picks to swap Nos. 1 and 4, that’s a great start. If they can trade back from there to No. 8 in a trade with the Raiders and get another first-rounder, that’s perfect. Then they could take TCU wide receiver Quentin Johnston. That’s a dream scenario.
MP: The Bears almost certainly will be better off trading the pick for multiple picks. One favorable scenario would be a trade with the Colts that nets the Bears the Colts’
first-round pick (No. 4 overall) and second-round pick (No. 36) this season and a first-round pick in 2024. But as the draft process moves forward, the competition for the No. 1 overall pick is more likely to heat up than cool down.
How would you assess Fields’ season?
PF: His runs were the most exciting thing I’ve covered on this beat in 10 seasons. For the Bears to win consistently, the passing game must improve.
JL: It was better, and the Bears should be optimistic about where he’s headed. He established himself as the best running quarterback in the game and was moderately more efficient as a passer — all with a woefully deficient offensive line and subpar skill players.
MP: Fields established himself as a franchise quarterback the Bears can build around, but — as was feared before the season — he needed a lot more support to prove he can be a dangerous threat in the passing game. Poles, offensive coordinator Luke Getsy and Fields have a lot to prove in 2023, but he’s the best starting point the Bears have had in a quarterback since Jim McMahon.
Would you consider drafting a quarterback?
PF: I’d consider everything. The most likely result, however, is drafting a Round 4-or-later backup who has skills similar enough to Fields to run the same plays.
JL: Certainly not in the first three rounds, but finding a viable backup for Fields is essential. The two games this season in which Fields didn’t play were a waste. The Bears started Trevor Siemian and Nathan Peterman. Neither is a promising young talent nor gifted with Fields’ running ability. The Bears need to follow the Ravens’ model and develop quarterbacks who play the same style.
MP: Yes — if I had the Bears’ resources to draft information and thought one of the top-rated quarterbacks was the next Patrick Mahomes or Josh Allen. That doesn’t appear to be the case with Alabama’s Bryce Young or any of the top quarterbacks in this draft, but few, if any, thought Mahomes would be Mahomes at this point of the draft process. Regardless of their confidence in Fields, the Bears could use a quarterback more similar to Fields as a backup. Lamar Jackson, it’s worth noting, is not playing in the Ravens’ wildcard game Sunday.
What grade would you give coach Matt Eberflus?
PF: C-. Objectively, he just had the worst season in Bears history, becoming their first coach to lose 10 games in a row and to finish with 14 losses. Still, many of the Bears’ struggles were by design. They had rookies play 1,000 more snaps than the NFL’s next-closest team, but few young players emerged as sure-fire keepers.
JL: C. He got exactly what was expected out of this roster — nothing more or less than any league-average replacement would’ve done. He would call it a successful season because he established the foundation of ‘‘championship habits,’’ but it’s unlikely most of these players will be part of the Bears’ next good team. The real test will be whether free agents adopt his principles.
MP: B-. During a 3-14 rebuilding season, Eberflus rarely looked as though he was doing this for the first time. Even with the Bears losing several games they could have won in the fourth quarter, there were few, if any, instances of poor game management. The jury’s still out, but Eberflus looks like a coach with a good chance to sustain success if Poles helps him achieve it.
The Bears’ hiring of Kevin Warren as CEO/president signifies . . .
PF: They’re willing to do something different — a great idea after they won three playoff games in Ted Phillips’ 24 years in that role.
JL: More pressure on Poles. Warren knows Poles has everything he needs to start building the roster, and he’ll be eager to see results.
MP: The Bears want a new stadium and want it done right. It remains to be seen whether it signifies a desire to alter their own culture of dysfunction and mismanagement, which has led to poor on-field results in the last 30 years. From many reports, however, Warren is the right guy to do that, as well.
Which of Poles’ decisions thus far will look the best?
PF: Drafting safety Jaquan Brisker in Round 2. I quibble with whom he could have drafted instead (the Steelers took George Pickens four picks later), but I think Brisker, despite run-support struggles toward the end of the season, will be a multiple-time Pro Bowl player.
JL: Drafting and developing Braxton Jones. The Bears should be looking for an upgrade at left tackle in free agency and the draft, but Jones still could have a future with them at right tackle. Anytime a GM finds a multiyear starter out of Southern Utah late in the fifth round, that’s a win.
MP: Taking cornerback Kyler Gordon (No. 39) and Brisker (No. 48) in the second round of the draft when he arguably had a bigger need at wide receiver. Gordon and Brisker look like foundation pieces on a defense that needs an awful lot of work even with them.
Which decision will Poles regret most?
PF: Since the Bears traded them linebacker Roquan Smith, the Ravens have given up 132 points — just two more than the league-leading 49ers. The Ravens paid Smith what the Bears wouldn’t in an extension, but Poles shouldn’t have been in the business of trading a 25-year-old standout when he could have given him the franchise tag twice.
JL: Remember the parade everybody threw for the Chase Claypool trade? Knowing now that the pick he gave the Steelers is No. 32 overall, it’s hard to believe Poles looks back on that as a good deal. And any player in Claypool’s position — going into the final season of his rookie contract — would want an extension this offseason. The Bears, however, haven’t seen enough to be sure about doing that. Poles might end up in another standoff.
MP: Trading a second-round draft pick that became the 32nd overall pick for Claypool. It still has the potential to be a win, but the early returns — on multiple levels — were unimpressive.