Could the Chicago Bears’ second-half improvement save Matt Eberflus’ job? Or would general manager Ryan Poles potentially prefer to pair a new quarterback with a new head coach?

Brad Biggs takes the temperature of the Eberflus situation and many other topics in the latest Bears mailbag.

Any temperature reading on where things could be for Matt Eberflus with two games remaining? — Ray L., Westchester

That’s one of the pressing questions for the fan base and the organization. I can’t tell you with certainty either way what will shake down after the Jan. 7 season finale in Green Bay. The vibe around the league since the weekend, in talking with a few folks from different organizations, is that Eberflus could be safe to return in 2024. Let’s keep in mind two more games remain part of the evaluation process.

The Bears are generally considered a relatively patient franchise. Marc Trestman was fired after two seasons in 2014. You have to go back to Paddy Driscoll (1956-57) to find the previous Bears coach who was in the role for only two years. While Trestman’s team was spiraling near the end of 2014, Eberflus has the current team competitive with a 5-4 record over its last nine games and a four-game winning streak at Soldier Field.

As I have written since September, you have to separate what happened in a 3-14 season with a stripped-down roster in 2022 from what has transpired this year. Are there games and decisions Eberflus and his staff would like back? For sure. The Bears would be in the playoff mix without fourth-quarter meltdowns against the Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns. Those were tough lessons for a young roster to learn.

Has the team remained competitive and avoided a rut since beginning the season 0-4? Yes. There’s evidence on both sides of the ball of improvement and development by young players. All of that bodes well for the future and is a compliment to the coaching staff because it’s twofold when you talk draft and development.

At 6-9, the team has doubled its win total from 2022, and most realistic expectations for this season had the Bears in the neighborhood of seven, maybe eight victories. All of that would point to an opportunity to return for Eberflus, who has done a really nice job overseeing the defense all season.

It’s also possible general manager Ryan Poles wants to draft a quarterback and align an offensive-minded head coach with the future of the franchise. That cannot be discounted. But if I had to venture a guess right now, Eberflus will be back in 2024. That’s based only on reading the tea leaves, understanding how the franchise generally operates and surveying the opinions of others around the league. We’ll all be educated when Poles answers questions at the end of the season.

To me, Sunday’s game provided more evidence of why Matt Eberflus has to go. Bears ball with about 2:27 left in the first half. Three timeouts. Arizona can’t stop the run. Bears attempt three passes, use little clock and punt. A good head coach tells the offensive coordinator how to manage that situation. Thoughts? — @gregcanfie89986

The Bears took possession on their 25-yard line with a 21-7 lead at the point you reference. They quickly went three-and-out and punted after the two-minute warning. To me, the problem was execution, not strategy. I like the aggressive decision to come out slinging, especially when you know the Cardinals will get the ball to begin the third quarter. Why not try to pad the lead?

Let’s be honest and admit it would have been difficult to drive the field in that time frame with a run-heavy possession, even with the timeouts and two-minute warning. The Bears needed some chunk plays and needed to use the sidelines a little bit to stop the clock.

Let’s look at what happened:

First-and-10: The Bears tried to get a quick drive starter from a 3-by-1 alignment. Darnell Mooney ran a speed out from the slot, Justin Fields made a good throw on time and Mooney dropped it. It probably would have been a 7-yard gain on the boundary, and Mooney easily would have gotten out of bounds to stop the clock. Not good.
Second-and-10: The Bears motioned to another 3-by-1 set and ran a basic curl/flat concept. The ball needed to go to DJ Moore on the curl. Fields had some edge pressure on him from the left. At that point, he needed to step up in the pocket, reset the throwing window and drive the ball. That didn’t happen. Moore converted the route and Fields, after scrambling, was not able to connect with him.
Third-and-10: The Bears used a 2-by-2 set and kept tight end Robert Tonyan in to block as the Cardinals showed pressure at the line of scrimmage before dropping into Cover-2. That’s not a good spot, with few windows, for an offense that needs 10 yards. The Bears ran middle read with three verticals. There was a read in the middle of the field where, if Fields could have stepped up in the pocket and ripped the pass, there was a chance to move the chains. Tonyan got beat, and the backside pressure turned it into a scramble drill with Fields dumping the ball to running back Roschon Johnson for a short gain. There was plenty of space for Fields to climb the pocket, but he hasn’t shown a lot of comfort doing that. It wasn’t a perfect opportunity, but, again, third-and-10 against Cover-2 is a challenge.

The Bears have routinely struggled in the two-minute offense. The quarterback has to master the pocket to take over in these situations. They have to be comfortable working backside on their reads and throwing the ball in the middle of the field.

This drive got off to a rough start when Mooney dropped the pass. That put the offense behind the chains. But I don’t believe this was poor clock management. The flip side is trying to burn clock and getting criticized for playing conservatively with a 14-point lead. The defense held and got the ball back quickly on the Bears 24 with 59 seconds remaining. A holding penalty set the offense back and it didn’t gain a yard.

Could you envision a scenario where Matt Eberflus is fired and the front office uses coaching interviews to assess how a new head coach could/would use Justin Fields vs. the potential and viability of quarterbacks in the draft class? — @davesolverson

If GM Ryan Poles is interviewing head-coaching candidates, he will have a ton of questions about offensive philosophy and how it would mesh with the current roster. I don’t know that Poles would lean heavily on a new head coach to make a call on a quarterback he hasn’t worked with the previous two years. Also, there probably isn’t a head-coaching candidate who has spent exhaustive time studying draft prospects at this point.

Poles would want to be aligned with a new coach in their vision for the offense, no question, and they would talk about most if not all of the players on the roster. Ultimately, Poles is the one making the call on the future of the position.

Does keeping Justin Fields hinder the Bears’ ability to re-sign Jaylon Johnson? — @dxwilson1

Not at all. The Bears made some difficult decisions in 2022, when they wound up carrying more than $85 million in dead salary-cap space. They successfully cleared the books and are set up with a healthy future cap situation. When you look at how they structured some of the larger contracts the last two years, the cap hits for each season remain pretty level and in some cases actually dip in the later years.

Sometimes teams design contracts with cap hits escalating in the later years of the contract in order to preserve cap space in the early years. The Bears are making their cap hits for larger contracts relatively balanced. For instance, linebacker Tremaine Edmunds has a $14.7 million cap hit this season. It bumps to $22.4 million in 2024 and is $17.4 million for each of the final two years of the deal. Defensive end Montez Sweat has a level cap hit of $25 million for each of the next four seasons.

The Bears are working to keep a pretty healthy cap situation, which would give them flexibility for at least a few years. According to overthecap.com, they project to have almost $64 million in cap space for 2024. That’s the seventh-most in the league and I would expect that number to be higher by the time the new league year begins. So there’s more than enough space for the Bears to tag or extend Johnson and have plenty of remaining room to be as aggressive as needed in free agency.

The wide receiver position has shown to be a problem. Is it crazy to think one of the two first-round picks will be used on a WR? — @themattsmothers

I don’t think the wide receiver problem is nearly as problematic as some believe. Is it where the Bears want it to be? Probably not. Is it a heck of a lot better than the past couple of seasons? No question. The real issue is that after DJ Moore, the only receivers under contract for 2024 are Tyler Scott and Velus Jones. Darnell Mooney, Equanimeous St. Brown and Trent Taylor will be coming out of contract after the season. I’ve written previously that wide receiver could be a serious consideration for one of the team’s first-round picks. Not only is there a need, it aligns with a strength of the draft.

Has Kyler Gordon propelled himself into a top-10 slot corner in the league this year in just his second season? He has been great this year in coverage and against the run, getting in the backfield to make stops. — @nickrichey11

Gordon has been pretty darn consistent all season, and his play probably has been overshadowed a little bit as Jaylon Johnson has had a banner season on the outside and the development of rookies Tyrique Stevenson and Terell Smith has warranted coverage. Gordon has definitely elevated his play this season. As far as rankings, I don’t know about that — it’s a position where some teams swap out their nickels from year to year — but it’s arrow up for Gordon, and the Bears have to be pretty happy with his developmental arc.

He’s ideal for the position because he possesses the loose hips needed for change of direction and has the size and strength to be credible against the run. He has a decent nose for the ball and he’s an aggressive and willing tackler. We’ve seen him deliver some big hits, and not every nickel cornerback brings the lumber. The Bears made a wise move in moving him to the slot and keeping him there, and that probably has expedited his development. He’s one reason a young secondary has a bright future.

Do you see a scenario where the Bears trade out of No. 1 and grab a QB other than Caleb Williams/Drake Maye? — @beardown3354

Anything is possible if the Bears indeed enter the draft with a plan to select a quarterback. I wouldn’t narrow the conversation to only Williams and Maye, and there’s no way the team is at that point. It has to carefully analyze LSU’s Jayden Daniels and find out everything there is to know about Michigan’s J.J. McCarthy if he chooses to enter the draft after the Wolverines’ season is complete.

There are two key reasons I believe this scenario is unlikely.

First, at 6-9, the Bears’ own draft pick would be No. 8 based on the current standings. With another win, it could move lower, and victories over both the Atlanta Falcons and Green Bay Packers would put the Bears at 8-9 and likely out of the top 10. Your scenario would be easier to ponder if the Bears were sitting at Nos. 1 and 5.

It gets more difficult to envision the quarterback the team wants being available at No. 8 or No. 10 or lower. That would get very risky, and then you would have to think about contingency plans for trading up. The only way this becomes more feasible is if the Bears start the draft by trading down from No. 1. There are so many variables, but that’s the first point I would make — the lower the Bears’ own pick is, the trickier your plan becomes to execute.

Second, and probably most important, is the Bears are going to invest a TON of time in analyzing quarterbacks for this draft. We’d be kidding ourselves if we said that process hasn’t already started. They’re going to spend months weighing the pros and cons of all the options. Eventually Ryan Poles and his staff will reach a conclusion and stack their board at the position with grades for each quarterback. Logic would tell you that information eventually will be shared with President/CEO Kevin Warren and likely Chairman George McCaskey in a setting where Poles and his staff explain how they arrived at this final determination.

Just for the sake of discussion, let’s say the Bears wind up with a quarterback other than Williams or Maye as their No. 1. Would having Daniels/McCarthy/Player X at the top of their board present an opportunity for the Bears to get that player without using the No. 1 pick? It’s possible. There would be risk, though, because it would take only one other team to have the same player at the top of its board with the means to select him, and then that plan would be foiled.

If the Bears are intent on drafting a quarterback, I don’t know that they can afford to wait to select the guy at the top of their board. If they have conviction in their grades — and they ought to — they should take the quarterback at No. 1 and not risk a scenario in which they could lose control of the situation.

Imagine if Poles and his staff present their rankings to Warren and McCaskey and come out of the draft without getting their top-graded quarterback. If that player goes on to become a star for whatever team gets him, that would doom everyone involved unless the Bears struck gold with the quarterback they wound up with.

If Justin Fields is not the quarterback going forward, is the running game not as good, not only because of his rushing gone but also the threat of having to account for him keeping it? — @jtbarczak

Fields’ ability as a runner — he leads the team with 585 yards (5.6 average) — and the concern defenses have for him certainly are benefits for the offense. After a season-high 250 yards on the ground in Sunday’s victory over the Arizona Cardinals, the Bears improved to No. 2 in the league in rushing, averaging 142.1 yards. The Baltimore Ravens are tops at 159.7.

If you removed all of Fields’ yards, the Bears would rank 20th in rushing at 103.1, just ahead of the Kansas City Chiefs. However, that’s not accounting for a replacement quarterback generating some rushing yardage. Tyson Bagent rushed for 105 yards on 21 carries in four starts. Fields is averaging 53.2 rushing yards per start. Bagent averaged 26.3. That’s a good-sized gap but maybe not as big as you would have imagined without looking into the numbers.

A true answer for your question would depend on who would be playing quarterback in place of Fields. If the replacement is a decent mover with some speed, the overall running numbers would dip but I think the ground game would remain a strength. That’s evidenced by the fact the Bears have been profitable on the ground with three different running backs — Khalil Herbert, D’Onta Foreman and Roschon Johnson. The relative strength of a rushing offense begins with the strength of the offensive line.

If the Bears end up with the No. 1 pick, wouldn’t it benefit them and give them more leverage for a potential trade by not announcing plans with Justin Fields or the pick? — @jagaldos50

I’ve gotten a couple of questions along these lines and I’m a little puzzled. You can’t own more leverage than having the No. 1 pick. You really don’t need to play poker. If the Bears have the No. 1 pick and want to select a quarterback and get draft capital in return for Fields, they can keep their plan under wraps for as long as they like. Eventually they’ll have to shop Fields. The sooner they do that, the more potential teams are involved. The more teams that are involved, the more offers they can field. The more offers they field, the more negotiating they can do. What benefit would there be in adding suspense to the situation?

A team considering adding a quarterback via trade or free agency generally wants to have that move completed sooner rather than later so it can address other needs and wants on the roster. What’s a timetable for this? I have no idea. I’m not certain the Bears have reached a conclusion at this point. No moves can officially happen until the new league year starts on March 13, but if you recall back to 2018 in the week leading up to Super Bowl LII, the Kansas City Chiefs agreed to terms of a trade that sent quarterback Alex Smith to Washington. That was in the final week of January.

I do know the Bears don’t need to play a leverage game if they own the No. 1 pick. It sure looks like it’s headed that way too. In that instance, the ball will be in GM Ryan Poles’ court and we’ll see what he wants to do at quarterback.

()