Another stunning final-play defeat — this one coming on a blocked field goal by the Green Bay Packers — extended the Chicago Bears losing streak to four games heading into two more division games in a five-day span next week.
As the heat surrounding coach Matt Eberflus intensifies, the Tribune’s Brad Biggs reaches into a packed Bears mailbag.
Can you believe Matt Eberflus said he would do it all over again and ask Cairo Santos to kick from 46 yards? — Alex E., Chicago
Eberflus held all the cards as the clock wound down in the final minute Sunday at Soldier Field. The Packers called their final timeout with 35 seconds remaining after a 12-yard completion from Caleb Williams to Keenan Allen moved the ball to the 30-yard line. At that point, the Bears had a first down and one timeout remaining.
They opted to run the ball with Roschon Johnson, who gained 2 yards. That set up second-and-8, and time was not a factor. The Bears had all sorts of options.
- Call a timeout immediately. Run the ball on second down from the 28 and then spike the ball on third down — or after a first down — to stop the clock.
- Call a timeout immediately. Pass the ball on second down and spike it on the next play, if necessary, to stop the clock.
- Quickly run a second-down play and then use the final timeout.
Those are just three strategies Eberflus could have used instead of letting the clock run down to three seconds, calling the timeout and sending on Santos and the kicking team.
Let me be clear here: The biggest problem the Bears had on the kick was poor protection by the line. Left guard Matt Pryor got driven back and there was too much space between him and long snapper Scott Daly, allowing the Packers to get penetration. That was a far greater issue than the strategy employed. That’s a problem on a 46-yard kick, a 42-yard kick, a 38-yard kick — whatever.
“The obvious risks are you false start, you go backward — you look at all that,” Eberflus said. “You run an outside play and they call holding. You throw a pass and it gets tipped, whatever it is.
“If you feel good about your decision there and the wind conditions and … where you are in the field, you take it down and then you kick it. And we felt good about it.”
After a series of games has gone against him in the fourth quarter dating to last season, Eberflus has lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to strategy. The Bears have been unable to pull out enough wins in these critical situations, so now when things go awry — and lately it has been in spectacular fashion — he gets buried underneath an avalanche of criticism.
That’s the way it goes, and I’m sure he understands that. I believe him when he says he would do the same thing again, hopefully with firmer protection in the center of the line. But a shorter kick is always better, and it’s more than fair to wonder why Eberflus didn’t attempt to run one or even two more offensive plays before sending on the field-goal team. Like I said, Eberflus had all the cards in his hands and he elected not to play them.
How many wins would you anticipate it would take for Matt Eberflus to be back in 2025? — @johnnyograddy
The Bears would have to go on an absolute heater, starting Sunday against the Minnesota Vikings at Soldier Field, for Eberflus to improve his prospects of remaining employed. That’s pretty much a rewrite of what I said a week ago. There’s even less room for error now with the team at 4-6, in last place in the division and chasing in the NFC playoff picture.
But I think you’re looking at this in too simplistic of terms. More important than the win total, in my opinion, is an overall feeling about how the roster is performing and trending at the end of the season. I’m not talking about the final two or three games but a wide-lens look at the entire operation. Is the program moving in the right direction? Are players improving? Did the team take expected steps forward? Does the immediate future appear bright?
All of that is more subjective than simply placing a number on a required win total. Clearly, the Bears would need to have a better record than two games below .500. It was fair to believe the Bears, even with a rookie quarterback, could be better than they were in 2023, when they finished 7-10. That’s going to be an uphill battle with the remaining schedule, and I’m not sure 8-9 gets it done for Eberflus.
If the Bears somehow get to 9-8 — they would have to go 5-2 in their final seven games — with Caleb Williams playing well and the offense clicking and the skill-position talent producing like they imagined entering the season, there’s probably a conversation that needs to take place. Short of that, high turnover on the coaching staff, too many losses in games the Bears controlled in the fourth quarter and a variety of other issues likely will be too much for Eberflus to overcome.
Basically, the Bears have to start winning and really cooking on offense with Thomas Brown in charge because it’s implausible to me that the front office would reach the end of the season and think it’s a good idea to allow Eberflus to hire a fourth offensive coordinator in four years.
What is the logic behind the organization not making changes at head coach during the season? — @rkasznia58
There’s no team rule in place that the Bears won’t fire head coaches in season. They evaluate each season and each coach individually. Fans are frustrated and I’d bet a paycheck ownership is actually more frustrated. Fans want to see someone pay, and we’ve already seen offensive coordinator Shane Waldron lose his job.
Is there a chance the Bears would make a move with Eberflus before the end of the season? I wouldn’t rule out anything. But I will say there’s no logic in the idea that firing a coach in season better prepares a team to hire its next coach. If so, you’d see a lot more in-season firings and a lot less action on Black Monday. Firing coaches in season is a great way to wave the dysfunction flag outside the team facility.
The Bears showed a little bit of promise on offense in the loss to the Packers. Don’t get too excited about it. The 19 points they scored would have been enough to win one game in Week 11. But it was improvement. Eberflus’ coaching seat is hot. We’ll see what shakes out.
Unless I am mistaken, the long snapper is protected on all kicks. If you check the replay, especially stop action of the actual block, the long snapper is being destroyed by two Green Bay players. I believe there is an official who has one job — watch and protect the long snapper. — Gerry B.
It’s close as to whether the Packers illegally initiated contact with Scott Daly. That’s the sentiment I picked up from chatting with other special teams coordinators and the mailbag’s special teams expert, former Bears long snapper Pat Mannelly.
On a game-ending play, you have to realize officials will be more hesitant to throw a flag. Right or wrong, that’s how it goes and it cuts both ways. I don’t believe the Packers used “leverage” on the play, placing an arm on an offensive lineman to jump or propel themselves forward. Certainly that didn’t happen in an egregious manner.
Matt Eberflus said the Bears will ask the NFL office for clarity on the play and why no penalty was called. That’s something teams do regularly — win or lose. They send in clips of a few plays and seek guidance as to why penalties were or were not called.
“We just saw them making direct contact with (Daly) right away,” Eberflus said Monday. “We’ll turn that in as well.”
Here’s the rub: Whatever feedback Eberflus and the team receive from the league office, we’re unlikely to hear it unless Eberflus is comfortable paying the bill for a likely fine.
Rules protect the long snapper from getting a direct blow to the head or neck immediately after the snap because he is deemed to be a defenseless player. The rules do not make it illegal to contact the long snapper.
“It’s one of those situations, when it happened during the game, there’s going to be more effort and I don’t think there was a direct blow to the head,” Mannelly said. “It looked like (Packers special teams coordinator) Rich Bisaccia taught them the proper technique, to go at the long snapper laterally.
“What looks illegal is the push. Lukas Van Ness is pushing (Karl Brooks, who blocked the kick), and that is illegal. You can can lean in behind a guy and run behind him, but he extends his arms and it’s a full ‘Tush Push’-type situation. The official looking at that angle should have seen that. But again, this is one of those game-ending situations you get maybe three or four times a year, and it’s a different animal. The effort and intensity are just different.
“The thing I saw was Matt Pryor getting blown back and it happened in the Arizona game too. The (A) gap is too wide. That’s why that is where the rush came from. They’ve got to close the alley.”
A foot higher and kick goes over. Is it time to search for a stronger leg that doesn’t have to drill low kicks to reach from 40 to 50 yards? — David M.
What’s the first thing a team seeks in a field-goal kicker? Accuracy. No doubt, leg strength is part of the equation, but it’s about finding a reliable kicker and keeping him. Cairo Santos is the most accurate kicker in franchise history, having made 89.4% of his field-goal attempts with the Bears, a good bit ahead of Robbie Gould (85.4%). Since 2020, Santos is 20 of 26 (76.9%) from 50-plus yards and 36 of 44 (81.8%) from 40 to 49 yards. From 39 and closer, he hasn’t missed a field goal since 2019 with the Tennessee Titans.
It’s incredible to see a kicker hit a 64-yard field goal like Brandon Aubrey did for the Dallas Cowboys on Monday night. The Cowboys wound up taking the points off the board and accepting a penalty on the play. Aubrey is one of the younger kickers in the league with a massive leg, and he has taken off since joining the Cowboys last season. He also had a 40-yarder go off the right upright Monday.
If the Bears can find a kicker with a stronger leg who is highly accurate, it’s a move worth making. But you have to realize that when you start spinning the kicker merry-go-round and you don’t hit on one, you’re going to experience some painful moments and it might be a while before you can get off the merry-go-round. It’s difficult to find highly accurate kickers, and that’s why the Bears signed Santos to a contract extension last December. When you have one, you want to keep him.
I’d also note the weather at Soldier Field makes it more challenging for some big-legged kickers to consistently hit long-range kicks (55 yards and more), especially in the second half of the season. So a guy who is a scoring weapon for a team that plays home games in a dome might not provide as much of an advantage playing half his games along the shoreline of Lake Michigan.
If the Bears offense continues to progress, do you love the idea of a Thomas Brown promotion? Say the Bears have a top-10 offense to finish off these last games. — @odunze46
Tap the brakes here. You’re speeding through a school zone, as were a handful of others who asked the same question. The Bears looked a little different under Brown. They were more organized before the snap. Caleb Williams got the ball out of his hands quicker and got his skill-position targets involved more. The running game was diversified and successful. The Bears were efficient on third down because they avoided negative plays. They protected the offensive line. And they scored 19 points.
The sample size here is way too small to start pondering any future role for Brown in the organization. Let the season play out. A ton of football remains — seven games. I wouldn’t dismiss any options for Brown, but it’s pointless to let the mind run wild when we’ve evaluated a grand total of 68 offensive plays. Let’s see if we have something worthy of discussion in December. That would be a good time to revisit the topic.
Why was there a perception before this season that the Bears had an elite defense? They had three major collapses last year and have been consistently weak against the run. What will the Bears do in the offseason to bolster the defense? — @pbkdc1
Don’t look at me. I think talk of the Bears potentially having a top-10 defense this season was realistic. In several respects, the unit has played to that level. But you could find plenty of folks pushing the idea in the offseason that this was a top-five defense, and when I think “elite,” I’m thinking top-five.
The Bears are very good in some key metrics:
- Points allowed, 7th
- Passing yards per game, 9th
- Interception rate, 9th
- Third down, 4th
- Red zone, 1st
- Takeaways, T-7th
That’s top-10 in some really important areas, especially scoring, third down and red zone. The run defense has been exposed too often this season, and the Bears rank 23rd with 130.3 rushing yards allowed per game, a year after leading the NFL in that category. They are tied for 15th with 25 sacks but have only two in the last two weeks and seven over the last four games. They had three or more sacks in five of the first six games.
We’ll see how the defense holds up in the rankings with a little less than half the season to go. With two games against the juggernaut that is the Detroit Lions and some other talented opponents, it will be challenging. As far as adding to this unit in the offseason, keep your focus in the trenches. That’s where the Bears will be looking to get better in terms of rushing the passer and stopping the run.
Is Roschon Johnson getting too many touches? With only a 10-pound weight difference, I feel the narrative is exaggerated that D’Andre Swift can’t be more of a workhorse. — @surbano
I disagree, and it appears offensive coordinator Thomas Brown might, too, if we’re going to draw conclusions from one game. Johnson had 10 carries (tying a season high) for 33 yards and a touchdown in the loss to the Packers, and Swift had 14 rushes for 79 yards with his score coming on a 39-yard run.
For starters, the Bears list Johnson at 6-foot-2, 222 pounds and Swift at 5-9, 208, so there is a bigger gap in the size of their frames than you suggest. Johnson profiles better running between the tackles, and while Swift still needs to do that — otherwise you’re tipping off to the defense what could be coming — his skill set is best highlighted in space.
As I wrote in 10 thoughts on Monday (see No. 5), Swift has 155 carries and is on pace for 264, which would be 35 more than the career-high 229 he had last season with the Philadelphia Eagles. He averaged 4.78 yards per carry through the Eagles’ first 11 games, then had 68 carries for 279 yards — a 4.1 average — in his final five games (he sat out Week 18 with an illness). Game situations and opponents might have played into that, but that’s a pretty big dip.
I don’t believe the Bears are worried about Swift exceeding the 229 carries he had last season, but they should be mindful of the workload he’s carrying. Getting Johnson more involved in the base offense and doing a better job of sharing the workload will hopefully keep Swift fresh for the entire season. Johnson had a total of 11 carries in the four weeks leading into the Green Bay game, so former offensive coordinator Shane Waldron wasn’t doing a good job of mixing him in.
For reference, Swift’s 264-carry pace is a lot. Here’s where that number would have ranked in the league in the previous five seasons:
- 2023, 5th
- 2022, T-6th
- 2021, 4th
- 2020, 4th
- 2019, 8th
That makes me think the Bears might want to target something a little closer to 250 and get Johnson, who can be a productive receiver, a little more involved.
It seems that the Bears are struggling to get pressure on opposing QBs. Also seems that they struggle at times defending the rush. How can the Bears generate more pressure with the unit they have? — Joe R., Deerfield
That’s the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. How do you improve the pass rush and run defense simultaneously without selling out for one or the other and exposing yourself too often. The pass rush was nonexistent against the Packers, a huge issue that hasn’t gotten enough discussion in the fallout over the blocked field goal. That being said, the Packers are second in the league in fewest sacks allowed per pass attempt and do a really nice job protecting Jordan Love, whom the Bears got only two hits on.
The week before, with defensive end Montez Sweat out of the lineup, the Bears sacked New England’s Drake Maye only once, and the Patriots are 28th in the league in sacks allowed per pass attempt. Maybe you throw out that game as a complete clunker — it was bad across the board — but the pass rush has slowed down and the Bears need to find some juice.
To do that and get more chances, they have to play better versus the run on early downs. I thought the run defense was adequate against the Packers after the opening series, especially considering the personnel. You saw the defensive linemen keeping blockers off linebackers so they could flow to the ball. But it has to be better.
The Bears are a mess in almost every area — coaching underperformance, a poorly constructed roster, professionalism issues and underperforming talent. Just to add to this pile, Kevin Warren seems to be taking a major step backward in the latest proposal to build at the former Michael Reese site. He seemed to walk into an ideal situation. Optimism about the team was extremely high, the organization bought a large parcel of land near transit and highways to develop against, and skyrocketing valuations should make financing a stadium easier than prior periods. Any insight into what the struggle is here? — Joe N., Westmont
As regular readers know, I do my best to steer clear of politics in the mailbag, and that’s what encapsulates the team’s bid for a stadium to replace Soldier Field. To clarify, the Bears are at least willing to consider the Michael Reese site in the Bronzeville neighborhood after previously ruling it out because the 49-acre site is narrow and Metra tracks that run alongside it would pose a security issue. If the Bears can work through those issues, maybe it’s a possibility with the proposal to build a new stadium just south of the current site completely stalled by all accounts.
The overarching issue here is money, and it always is when it comes down to stadium issues. In the Bears’ proposal to construct a stadium in the south parking lot, they offered to pony up $2.3 billion and are seeking $900 million in public assistance with another $1.5 billion or so in infrastructure costs. That’s $2.4 billion that would have to come from public money, and Gov. J.B. Pritzker has said that’s a complete nonstarter. That’s before you even consider the possibility of a showdown between the Bears and Friends of the Parks.
How much public money the Bears would seek to build a stadium at the Michael Reese site, in Arlington Heights or anywhere else in Illinois remains unknown. But that’s the story when you consider the possibility of the team picking a site, lining up funding and actually sticking a shovel in the ground.
I’m sure this has been more difficult than Warren imagined when he took the job. The Bears will have to pursue other avenues to secure more money or find a breakthrough in their bid for public funding.
When starting a game on defense, the Bears seem to give up a first-drive score quite often. Once they get past the first drive, the defense is usually much more focused and starts performing at its normal level. I don’t have stats but this seems to have been a trend for quite a while. Is this because the defense is predictable, which makes it easier for the opponent to script out their plays, or for some other reason? — Chris R. Midlothian
Recency bias after watching the Packers drive 70 yards in eight plays — without hitting a third down — has clouded your recollection. That was the first touchdown the Bears have allowed on the opponent’s first possession this season.
Teams winning the coin toss defer nearly 100% of the time, and it has happened in all 10 Bears games. They won the toss in the last three games and got a three-and-out against the Patriots and Arizona Cardinals.
The Bears have won the toss in six games, and the opponent has one touchdown (Packers), one field goal (Houston Texans) and four three-and-outs in its first possession. In the four games the Bears lost the toss and the opponent deferred, they allowed three field goals on the first defensive series (Los Angeles Rams, Jacksonville Jaguars and Washington Commanders) and got one three-and-out (Indianapolis Colts).
Your point of view is probably a little skewed because the Bears have struggled offensively in the first quarter and have been outscored 46-13.
As a glass-half-full Bears fan since the ’60s, I’ve grown weary of so many head coaching changes the team has made in the last 30 years. Is there any scenario where you see the Bears keeping Matt Eberflus? — Mike L., Indialantic, Fla.
I wouldn’t rule it out, but as I said above, the Bears would have to be much better the rest of the way and Caleb Williams would really have to take off. As we all know, a lot is piling up against Eberflus right now, and I’d really like to avoid the mailbag becoming a weekly referendum on the head coach from now until January.
As far as having a high turnover rate, few organizations enjoy the kind of stability the Pittsburgh Steelers have. They’ve had three coaches since 1969: Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin, who has been in charge since 2007.
The Bears have had six coaches since 2000. Nineteen teams have been through more coaches in that span, so it’s not like the Bears have been spinning their wheels as quickly as some organizations.
Given all of the offensive line talent evaluation/performance/availability issues, I am now wondering if the Bears were aware of Ryan Bates’ arthritic condition when they traded for him and built their plans around him? Arthritis is not an acute injury and the plan seems to be “hope.” — Greg, Naperville
Fair question. Bates had to pass a physical for the Bears to sign him to an offer sheet in 2022, and the trade in March was also contingent on him passing a physical. So they checked him out and were aware of his play history. He’d never had a stint on injured reserve and was able to manage the issue previously.
Bates dealt with more shoulder pain than he’d ever experienced beginning in training camp, and as I detailed in my column Monday (No. 7), he ultimately paid out of his own pocket for stem cell treatment in Panama in September. That helped him get back on the field, and he said he feels remarkably better.
Now the question is how long it will be before he can clear concussion protocol. Bates feels like the Bears have invested a ton in him and he wants to hold up his end of the bargain. That’s what led to the trip to Panama so he could solve the shoulder issue.
When Green Bay blocked the field goal and it landed between the goal line and the line of scrimmage, I believe it is a live ball and anyone on offense could have picked it up and run for a touchdown even though it rolled into the end zone. Is this right or am I wrong? — Lou S.
It’s a live ball, but the kicking team cannot possess the ball unless it is touched by the defense first. So the Bears could not have recovered the ball and advanced it to the end zone unless the Packers touched it first.
The rule for defensive teams is simple: If the ball is beyond the line of scrimmage, as it was in this case, stay away. If the ball is behind the line of scrimmage, scoop and score. In this case, the Packers didn’t need to consider that because they were ahead and the game was over.
