Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions.

How much will the starters play in preseason? — Jason W., Rolling Meadows

You’re asking about something most coaches, Matt Eberflus included, treat as a closely guarded secret. I do find it a little amazing that coaches — and this isn’t commentary on only Eberflus — can spend the offseason charting what they will do down to the minute through training camp and leading up to the regular season but don’t know what they’re going to do in preseason games. Yes, it’s a little early and things can shift, but the reality is coaches don’t want to reveal their plans until they inform the players, which happens much closer to game time.

“We’ve talked about that a little,” Eberflus said Tuesday. “Have not finalized it right now. But we actually visited about that this morning. It will be some time — it will be some play time. But what that is right now, I’m not sure.”

Whether that means playing time for starters in the preseason opener Aug. 12 against the Tennessee Titans, we don’t know. Many teams have taken a hard stance against playing front-line players in preseason action, and the Bears certainly don’t want to expose quarterback Justin Fields, wide receiver DJ Moore, linebacker Tremaine Edmunds and other key players to injuries in meaningless games.

I’m also of the opinion that a handful of snaps probably doesn’t do a lot to prepare a player for the regular season. You aren’t going to convince me that 15 snaps for Braxton Jones at left tackle in the preseason are going to make him any more or less prepared for Week 1 against the Green Bay Packers.

A couple thoughts here.

First I kind of understand why coaches don’t want to talk about things like this. It isn’t that it’s some closely guarded national secret that’s going to make or break the season. But if you tell the media what your plans are and then something happens during the game and those plans don’t come to fruition, you’re going to be asked about it. Sometimes that’s OK. But there are times when coaches don’t want to explain, for instance, that a player didn’t get as many snaps as planned because they sustained an injury that no one wants to talk about Coaches would much rather keep reporters in the dark and tell you that whatever happened was the original plan.

I’m not defending it. But I do understand it.

Second, my guess is that the starters won’t see much playing time in the pre-season. I think the indications are that the Bears are one of those teams that prefers to keep their players healthy during the summer at the expense of training time.

I know that there are some coaches who prefer to go with the “practice like you play” philosophy. This would mean, to some extent, playing through injuries even during the summer so that players understand that that’s what’s expected and get used to it.

After all, as the players say, the only game that you ever play in the NFL when you’re completely healthy is your first one. If you aren’t practicing every time something hurts, you basically arne’t practicing.

I am reminded of the Chase Claypool incident where the Bears put him on the injured list to begin camp and then the very next day took him off. In my head, I imagined the Bears saying to themselves that they prefer to have him completely healthy for the season and rest whatever minor injury is bothering him. I would speculate that Claypool, coming from Pittsburgh, is more of the mind that you play through those things even when you practice. It’s a question of being tough and setting an example for the other players. My guess is that Claypool’s training with a tough, no nonsense organization told him that was the right thing to do. So he told the bears to take him off of the injured list.

That’s pure speculation. But I know tthat’s what some successful organizations expect and I can see it happening.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions.

From videos, it seems Justin Fields is willing to take checkdowns more often. Do you see this being a big thing for the offense when he is taking those 4- to 5-yard completions? — @dabearszach

It definitely will be a positive if the Bears can get the running backs more involved in the passing game. Those are some of the “layups,” as offensive coordinator Luke Getsy calls them. Take the short gain, live to play another down. Those dump-offs eliminate the chances for a huge play on some of those snaps but they also create a profit, if even a small one. They keep drives moving. The Bears totaled only 62 targets for running backs/fullbacks last season with David Montgomery leading with way with 40 (34 receptions, 316 yards).

From my perspective, there have been too many checkdowns to running backs or throws to tight ends on short-curl or hook routes in 7-on-7 periods in camp. You don’t want to see an abundance of passes directed to running backs. The goal is for the quarterback to see the Nos. 1 and 2 reads and get the ball out or if he has to work back to No. 3, do that but with speed and tempo. That is being decisive with the ball.

Checkdowns happen. Because the Bears can be Cover-2 heavy at times on defense, there are going to be plays in which that’s the outlet. If you have two-deep coverage over the top and they are capping the vertical throws and you see the linebacker drop, boom, you drop it off to the running back and go to the next play. That is what the defense wants. Being decisive is seeing it fast in the pocket and delivering the ball rhythm. It doesn’t matter who it is going to, but you don’t want a bunch of completions to running backs or short checkdowns to tight ends. It has been a consistent theme.

Biggs is, of course quite right. However, as I’ve said, before, Fields has a bad habit of simply holding the ball too long, and, especially in two minute situations at the end of games, it cost him and the team.

Biggs points out that the Bears defense can be covered 2 heavy, and that forces you to take with the defense gives you underneath. In two minute situations teams are always in this kind of coverage. The entire goal is to prevent the offense from making big plays. This is where Fields falls down. Be patient, take the shorter gains in these periods and be confident that you’ve got time to do it.

Rumor has it that when Fields was intercepted last week by an unknown, undrafted rookie it was in a two minute situation when the down and distance was first and 20. Everything was covered underneath and Fields threw the ball up for grabs in an effort to make a play that wasn’t there.

Even the always overly positive Adam Jahns at The Athletic had to admit after a glowing report about the Bears’ preformance in a another two minute drill that, “All of that success, though, came after Fields was intercepted by cornerback Josh Blackwell on his first pass in the situational drill.” Again. that is, on first down in a two minute situation where Fields could have thrown a low percentage but safe ball where only the reciever could have caught it and lived to fight another day.

Instead, he threw the ball up and it was intercepted. Game over and the Bears lose another one possession game at the end.

That kind of thing can’t keep happening this year. Taking the underneath throw has to be the answer. And if that means checking the ball down more often in camp, well, perhaps that’s something Fields needs to get more used to doing in situations that call for it.

Nick Shook at nfl.com has eight observations from training camps around the league. He says that Jordan Love is eager to get started as he replaces Aaron Rodgers at quarterback for the Packers.

“I’m the man now and it’s going to be fun,” Love said. “It’s going to be on display all year with the team, and it’s just bringing everybody along, have fun with the guys and make the most fun of this opportunity we got.”

The offense might look a little different without No. 12 behind center, but as Love explained Saturday, it’s still going to be Matt LaFleur’s system dictated by the coach’s decisions. Considering [head coach Matt] LaFleur‘s past success, that’s a good thing. But with Rodgers gone, expectations have admittedly changed.

Whether it’s a good thing or not is debatable.

The seven deadly sins were first formulated by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century. They include wrath, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, and sloth. But pride is considered to be the gravest and the root of the other six.

I’d say football coaches are particularly prone to it.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of what Rodgers was doing with the Packers over the last few years. Rodgers became too much of a see it, throw it quarterback and relied upon his athletic ability to make plays when he was not absolutely sure that a guy would be open. He didn’t do too much anticipation because that leads to turnovers if the receiver is in the wrong spot. And turnovers are bad for individual statistics. They can lead to bad plays on Sports Center even when the team wins.

In any case, as the article implies, he wasn’t really running LaFleur‘s offense as LaFleur would like to see it run.

But there’s no doubt that Rodgers is a great quarterback and he raised the level of the performance of that team. To his credit, LaFleur has been suppressing his feelings and he’s compromised to allow Rodgers to do it his way.

But in the end, LaFleur’s no different than most. Coaches tend to have big egos and I have no doubt LaFleur thinks that if he gets a quarterback that will run his system, the Packers will do better than they did with Rodgers. And undoubtedly he’s been raring for the opportunity to show it.

He might want to be prepared for a bit of a let down.

Time after time when we’ve seen teams in this position fall once a great quarterback leaves. Tom Brady leaving the Patriots is a prime example. Despite the fact that they have Bill Belichick, the Patriots have never been the same since Brady left.

And LaFleur is not the greatest football coach of all time.

It’s likely that the Packers will struggle in Love’s first year almost regardless. Even Rodgers’ first season as a starter after taking over from Brett Favre was less than stellar (the Packers went 6-10). But even that weren’t the case, I wouldn’t count on the Packers being as good without Rogers as they were with him.

The Packers have been on a wonderful streak for 25 years. But pride goeth before the fall. This could be the beginning.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune talks about Kyler Gordon‘s performance in camp. The Bears have Gordon working strictly in the nickel slot this year.

“I do believe that just with everything, less is more,” [defensive coordinator Alan] Williams said. “So when you reduce the amount of things that he has to do in terms of technique assignments, they can’t help but get better. He works at it unbelievably. He is smart. He is instinctive. I don’t know if you remember last year, but he didn’t get into that spot (nickel) until this time last year. We didn’t rep him there in OTAs. So he’s got all those reps banked from the season underneath his belt on top of a little bit less on his plate in terms of being outside, so I would say yes, it has helped him on top of one more year in the system.

“But if you’re just talking about Kyler from what his skill set is, gosh, man, the guy’s have nicknamed him Spider-Man because he is so quick. He’s so agile. He is instinctive. He’s got spidey senses. When he makes a play and you go, ‘Wow, how did he make that?’ Ding, ding, ding, the spidey senses are going off. The quickness, the instincts, they’ve been showing up in a big way. Usually that happens Year 2. I’ve seen guys come in and Year 1, they’re getting their feet up underneath them. Year 2, they feel more comfortable, they know how to get lined up. They’re not just going through memorization. Now they’re starting to play football. That’s what you’re seeing out there.”

I’ll never understand why they had Gordon playing two positions last year, particularly when became evident that they weren’t going to be competitive within the division. Gordon needed to settle in as a rookie and having him play both inside and outside simply put too much on his plate. Williams’ quote Confirms that.

I’m glad that they haven’t compounded the mistake and have played him at only one position this year. Hopefully it will lead to a better performance on the field.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune addresses the performance of Bears quarterback Justin Fields at training camp on Friday.

Without a lot of full-speed action, there wasn’t an abundance of plays to sift through and overanalyze. Fields threaded a nice pass to DJ Moore on an intermediate dig route in tight coverage against [Jaylon] Johnson in one-on-one drills. His best throw, also in one-on-ones, might have been a corner route to tight end Robert Tonyan against safety Elijah Hicks. The majority of throws in 7-on-7 action were checkdowns, so much so that it could have been by design.

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if those checkdowns were by design.

Fields had a bad habit of holding the ball in order to try to gain all of the needed yardage at once rather than taking what the defense gave him last year. That was particularly in two minute situations against defenses that were specifically designed to prevent the big play. It causes repeated failures in close games that the Bears might have otherwise won.

It would behoove him to do a little bit more of this and have confidence that the Bears can still move the ball in these situations. Even a cursory watch of other top quarterbacks in the league could show how much taking yardage in 5-10 yard chunks can quickly add up to put a team in scoring position.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions.

“Is Khalil Herbert at risk for a demotion? Roschon Johnson seems like great value in the fourth round, but that’s a crowded RB room now. — @mosconml

“My initial reaction when the Bears selected Johnson was that puts real pressure on Herbert. The Bears led the NFL in rushing last season with David Montgomery, Herbert and quarterback Justin Fields. Montgomery signed with the Detroit Lions in free agency, and the Bears added D’Onta Foreman and Travis Homer. Consider the current front office and coaching staff didn’t draft Herbert and you start to wonder how things will shake out.

“Generally teams keep three running backs on the 53-man roster, and that doesn’t include the fullback, where the Bears could have Khari Blasingame. I wouldn’t rule out a fourth running back making the roster. This is a good situation for the Bears in that it will raise the level of competition.”

My first thought when I read this question was that last year’s sixth round pick, Trestan Ebner was the player that’s in the most serious jeopardy.  He decidedly underperformed last year when given a chance to play, carrying 24 times for only 54 yards.  But perhaps Biggs already assumed that we would know that.

Most Bears fans considered Herbert to be a reasonably productive running back last year.  At 731 yards on 129 carries for 5.7 yards per carry he was an important compliment to Montgomery, who was more of a straight line, power type of runner with good contact balance.   Foreman seems to have a similar style.

There are four other running backs on the roster:  Foreman, Homer, Herbert, and Johnson.  Assuming the Bears keep three total running backs, a lot depends on how much the Bears like Homer.  He gained only 74 yards on 19 attempts last year and, like Johnson, would be mostly depended upon to add to special teams.  Given Johnson’s reputed strength in this area, you could argue that Homer’s job is in jeopardy, as well. But its worth bearing in mind that the Bears gave Homer a 2 year, $4 million contract with $1.75 million in dead money if he’s cut.

Bottom line, I see Ebner as being in more serious trouble that Herbert, who was a statistically productive running back on the field last year and whose skills could leave him in an important role in a potential running back rotation. Given the possible special teams contributions from Johnson and Homer and given Herbert’s production, I think that they most likely decide to keep four running backs after that unless Homer shows that he is decidedly better than Herbert.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions:

“What are realistic expectations this year? Anything short of the playoffs would be a disappointment in my opinion … and not a No. 7 seed backing their way into the postseason. — @atown2956

“The Bears have a ton of moves to make before we can evaluate the roster and schedule and offer any informed guesses about the 2023 season. It sounds like you have grand expectations for free agency and the draft. The Bears have to be worlds better on defense and much better on offense to compete for a division title or playoff berth.

“There is plenty of history of worst-to-first turnarounds in the NFL. One complicating factor, a little more than a month before the start of the new league year and free agency, is this roster lacks difference makers. The Bears don’t look anything like the teams you’ll see Sunday in Super Bowl LVII. Right now I think getting closer to .500 would be a realistic goal, but we have to see what moves are in store.”

I’m with Biggs on this. When I envision what a playoff roster looks like and I look at the Bears roster, they are so far apart that I have a very difficult time imagining that the Bears will anywhere get close to that in one off-season.

Grand expectations like this worry me a bit. I think some fans are setting an unrealistic standard for the Bears to turn things around that quickly.

Yes, last to first turnarounds are certainly well-known to happen in the NFL. But it seems to be like it most often happens to teams that have finished last or nearly last fairly consistently for a fairly long period of time. Teams such as the Lions and Jaguars tend to have “fast” turn arounds that actually took years and years. These teams have had a chance to acquire significant talent that has developed for multiple seasons and then acquired top talent in one final draft to suddenly push them over the edge.

The Bears are not in such a situation. I have been surprised before. But I think it’s dangerous to expect it.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions:

“I know that the Bears have a great deal of cap space to play with this offseason. But it was always my understanding that more cap space can always be made available in the NFL if you really want to do it and that it was the cash budget that is often what determines who you can sign and who you can’t. Do you think that could be a limiting factor for the Bears this offseason? — Tom S., Chicago

“Excellent observation. While cap figures for each team are readily available, what’s never known is the cash budget each team is operating with during a given league year. With nearly $100 million in available cap space for 2023, Ryan Poles has more room than he can realistically use, especially when you consider it’s not expected to be a banner year for free agents.

“I would expect Poles to have enough of a cash budget to accomplish pretty much anything he wants to do. The Bears have gone light the last two years and have not shied away from throwing around big money under George McCaskey. They went heavy in free agency in 2018 and then made the biggest move of that year by trading for and extending the contract of outside linebacker Khalil Mack. My guess is the Mack move might have taken them over their cash budget for that season, but presented with a special circumstance, ownership signed off on what was the largest contract for a defensive player in league history at the time.”

I tend to agree with Biggs on this. As far as I can tell the cash budget has never kept the Bears from spending money where they felt like they needed to and there’s no reason to believe that this offseason will be an exception.

Having said that it’s not my money.

Personally I would prefer that the Bears spend a lot of the money in free agency on contracts that are front-loaded with guaranteed money. This frees that cap space that you are spending back up more quickly for future free agents.

But that means lots of cash up front. I could hardly blame the Bears for wanting to spread the cash hit to the budget out over more years.

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions:

“Why shouldn’t the Bears draft the best QB available? Someone that complements Justin Fields. Why not have two great QBs? Now that the season is longer, how many QBs make it through the whole season? It is obviously the most important position. — Spencer, Warrenville

“No argument from me that quarterback is the most important position. But I can’t agree with anything else. It would be a fantastic problem if the Bears were suddenly to have two great quarterbacks. Imagine the possibilities for the future. Currently, I don’t think you can say the Bears have one great quarterback. [Quarterback Justin] Fields needs to make some significant improvements, and the team has been pretty straightforward saying as much.

“In order for Fields to do that, the Bears need to be better around the quarterback — and better on defense. Using the first pick on a quarterback would not improve the offensive line, wide receivers or a porous defense. The Bears need to see if a better-supported Fields can become their quarterback of the future before they consider choosing another one in the first round.”

I agree with Biggs on this. I don’t think the Bears have any business taking a quarterback in the first round. Having said that, they should definitely be thinking about taking one somewhere.

Perhaps the biggest issue that I have had with the Bears over the last few years is that they have been sold on going all in on one quarterback and spending every single resource that they have in an effort to getting the team around him up to a winning standard immediately. This sounds like a good thing but it’s poor future planning.

The Bears should always have another quarterback in the hopper that they are trying to train up and get ready to start. At worst, such quarterbacks may become good backups. At best, you manage to coach such a player up to the point where they exceed expectations become potential starters. They could eventually replace your current starter if necessary and have significant trade value if not.

Like most Bears fans I think Fields shows promise. But I would love to see the Bears take another quarterback somewhere in the mid- to late rounds.

Offense

• Perhaps it’s just my low expectations talking but kudos to Nathan Peterman, who looked competent out there today (11 for 19 with a QB rating of 92.9 before a garbage time interception). Admittedly, the offense wasn’t moving very well under Peterman. But I was still surprised when they replaced him with Tim Boyle. Perhaps they just wanted to see what they had in Boyle. Peterman came back in midway through the 3^rd quarter.
• Boyle’s first drive didn’t go well. There was an apparent miscommunication, and he threw a floater right to Patrick Peterson for an interception. He was OK after that, I thought (2 of 4 for 33 yards, 8.3 yards per pass).
• Larry Borom was your right guard this game. I kept an eye on him and I thought he did well. But I didn’t think that he was a bad right tackle before they replaced him with Riley Reiff so…
• It’s nice to see Vilus Jones have such a good game today (1 catch for 298 yards). I like seeing him score the 42 yard rushing touchdown, though I’d rather he did it after catching a pass. He had a nice return n the opening kickoff.
• Cole Kmet had a nice game today (4 catches for 57 yards and 14.3 yards per catch). He had a wonderful second effort to secure the Bears second touchdown. Up until this year I was not convinced that convert Kennett was going to be in the Bears future. But lately he’s been coming on and I can see the athletic system that made former GM Ryan pace pick him.
• On such a bad offensive day it isn’t surprising that the Bears were a miserable 2 of 9 on third down and 0 for 3 on 4^th.

Defense

• Cornerbacks today with all of the injuries? Harrison Hand, Breon Borders, Michael Ojemudia, and Greg Stroman. Only Hand had started an NFL game before today. Not too surprising that they looked completely lost with broken coverages all over the field early on. It’s hard to figure out whose fault these are but what I found to be mildly concerning was the frequency with which Jaquan Brisker seemed to be involved. Brisker is a rookie but should be playing well by now. In fairness he played better late in the game and nearly had a nice interception in end zone in the third quarter.
• On a related note, the Bears mixed it up but it looked to me like they were playing a lot of soft zone coverage. I suppose I can’t blame them. They were severely outmanned. In the end, I think the best that they could hope for was to slow things down so that the score didn’t get out of hand.
• And, hey, kudos to Stroman who made a fantastic athletic play to get an interception in the 4^th quarter.
• This may be a ridiculous thing to say. But I think the defensive line played just a little better today. They didn’t play well and they had to play stunts and games up front a lot. But every once in a while, I thought I saw some penetration against the run and they did put pressure on Kirk Cousins on occasion. And they were a big part of a nice goal line stand at the end of the first half.Don’t get me wrong. More often than not they still had a tough time getting off of blocks and I wouldn’t call it a good performance. The Vikings ran for 141 yards and passed for 341. The Bears had no sacks. But given what they’ve been, it was actually an improvement.

Miscellaneous

• I was interested to see if the Bears were going to let Jones return punts again before the season ran out. But the Vikings never punted the ball.
• Super poor job of clock management at the end of the first half by the Vikings. Inside the 10 on 3rd down, why in the world they didn’t call play where the wide receiver either caught the ball in the end zone or it was incomplete, I don’t know. But the wide receiver was tackled in bounds in the clock continue to run. Not all the Vikings got off the field and, honestly, I don’t think that some of them knew that the team was out of time outs. Initially some of them didn’t seem to be in much of a hurry. A penalty was called, taking away their chance at a field goal. To not come away with points on a drive like that in a game like this was such a Vikings thing to do.
• I actually surprised myself this game. In my life I’ve never rooted against the Bears. And I didn’t really do it today. But the Bears secured the number 2 overall pick with a chance at #1 with a loss and I did have this very tiny feeling of relief every time the Vikings scored to keep the game securely within their grasp. I didn’t think I had it in me. And I’m not too sure that I’m proud of it.

  The Bears eventually secured the number #1 overall pick with a Texans loss making them officially the worst team in the league. Congratulations. I guess.