Chicago Bears Q&A: Does GM Ryan Poles have enough autonomy to make big changes? Will Sunday’s result affect the offseason?

Justin Fields has one more start to convince the Chicago Bears brass he can be the quarterback of the future. The Bears finish their season Sunday against the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field (3:25 p.m., CBS-2).

Brad Biggs answers questions about general manager Ryan Poles, Fields’ future, hypotheticals and much more in the latest Bears mailbag.

[ [Don't miss] What does the future hold for Justin Fields, Matt Eberflus and the No. 1 pick? Brad Biggs’ 10 thoughts on the Chicago Bears. ]

Ryan Poles was in Kansas City when the Chiefs had Alex Smith, a serviceable and even popular quarterback, and traded up to the No. 10 spot to choose Patrick Mahomes. Fast-forward to 2024 and Poles finds himself on the precipice of a similar situation, only this time he’s in charge. Poles has made shrewd decisions with an eye to the future, and Ted Phillips would likely have greenlighted anything to copy the K.C. formula. But does Poles have enough autonomy with Kevin Warren if he wants to execute a change this seismic? — Kamal T., North Smithfield, R.I.

Interesting question and quite a bit to unpack here. The Chiefs had legitimate success with Smith, who arrived in 2013, Andy Reid’s first season in Kansas City, and referring to him as “serviceable” probably undersells him. Smith was 41-20 as the starter through four seasons as the starter there, going 11-4 in that role in 2016 when the Chiefs won the AFC West. He was selected to the Pro Bowl after the 2013 and 2016 seasons. He threw 76 touchdown passes with 28 interceptions in those four years, completing 64.5% of his passes. The Chiefs reached the conclusion Smith wasn’t the player who would take them to the highest levels and Mahomes might just be that guy.

Smith remained the starter during Mahomes’ rookie season and had arguably his best season with the Chiefs, passing for 4,042 yards in 15 games with 26 touchdowns and only five interceptions, earning a third Pro Bowl nod. The Chiefs traded Smith to Washington after that season, and Mahomes has become a future Hall of Famer who likely will have a statue built outside the stadium one day.

Based on what Poles and Warren said about each other over the summer, they have a strong working relationship and real trust has developed in a short period of time. It’s hard to envision Poles getting permission to swap a second-round pick for Montez Sweat and then sign him to a $98 million extension if the powers that be didn’t have faith in his abilities and vision. Poles doesn’t have to get approval for everything he does, but he has to run something of that magnitude by Warren and ownership.

I believe Poles has more than enough autonomy to take the Bears in any direction he chooses, including at quarterback. If he doesn’t have that power, he’s not the right man for the job. Will he need to explain the thinking behind his decision? It’s only natural his superiors would want to know what and why. But I’d be stunned if Poles doesn’t have full control of the football operation.

Chairman George McCaskey has an established track record of hiring football folks and allowing them freedom to perform the job as they see fit. I can’t see anything that has happened since Warren was hired as a layer between Poles and ownership that would alter that dynamic. Warren strikes me as the kind of boss who wants to be kept in the loop, who can be an occasional sounding board and who will be eager to provide all necessary resources. I don’t think he’s going to attempt to grab the steering wheel on football matters.

Do you believe how Sunday goes will have a significant say in the direction of the offseason? — @jpoch1983

The rivalry with the Packers is a special thing for the McCaskey family, as it is for fans. George McCaskey would have a real bounce in his step walking to the parking lot Sunday night at Lambeau Field if the Bears are victorious and knock the Packers out of the playoffs.

But let’s take a step back and attempt to remove emotion from the conversation. The Packers are 8-8. They have a first-year starting quarterback in Jordan Love. They are 21st in total defense and 28th against the run. They have the youngest roster in the league. What I’m saying is this isn’t a matchup against the Packers at the height of their strength with Aaron Rodgers. This is a middle-of-the-road opponent that is, in a lot of ways, similar to the Bears in terms of being young and having some ascending players. From that standpoint, I don’t know why this game would count more when it comes time to make decisions.

A victory would be a terrific way for the Bears to enter the offseason. It would give them a 3-3 record in the division and would be their fifth win in the final six games. They would enter the offseason with the momentum that would make you wonder about the trajectory the Detroit Lions took from the 2022 season into 2023.

But from a football perspective — again, we’re trying to remove emotion from the discussion — this game is one-seventeenth of the season. I can’t see a reason the outcome Sunday would be more significant than wins against the Falcons and Cardinals or a loss to the Browns. Yes, I think coach Matt Eberflus, with seven victories this season, is well-positioned to return in 2024.

Hypothetically, how do you square the Bears not picking up Justin Fields’ fifth-year option while also passing on a quarterback at No. 1? These actions together would seem inconsistent if that’s the route the Bears go. — @wickywoowoo1

We don’t know what route the Bears are going to choose at quarterback in the offseason, and I’m not sure they have that answer just yet. If they elect to keep Fields, they would have to pick up or decline the option year for 2025 in his contract by May 3.

Those two actions combined — declining the option and passing on a quarterback at the top of the draft — would seem incongruous to me. My opinion all along is that the Bears need to be all-in on Fields after this season — meaning prepared to open discussions about a contract extension — or out. That’s just my opinion, and I am sure some disagree. I’ve thought that way because we’ve known for almost the entire season the Bears would have a pick at or near the top of the draft and, as it’s turned out, they own the No. 1 choice thanks to the trade with the Carolina Panthers.

There’s no telling what kind of draft capital the team will have in future years. So if the Bears like a quarterback in this class — that question still needs to be answered — I think you’re looking at a call between extending Fields or seeking to trade him and draft a replacement. If the Bears don’t like a quarterback in this class, they will keep Fields and can sort through what they want to do with the fifth-year option.

[ [Don't miss] Justin Fields knows there’s a typical timeline in the NFL. The Chicago Bears QB thinks he’s ‘just at the start.’ ]

Some will propose the team does not have to go all-in with Fields after this season because it has two more years of control (2024 with a cap hit of $6 million and 2025 fifth-year option at an estimated $23 million) at a reasonable rate before reaching a point at which the franchise tag could come in play. I would not completely discount that possibility, but it seems the Bears would be riding the fence with Fields — not ready to fully commit and not ready to move on. You’re sort of in limbo there hoping you have a legitimate franchise quarterback while working to improve other areas of the roster and at the same time hoping there isn’t another C.J. Stroud in this draft class. From my perspective, teams that choose a wait-and-see period with their quarterback usually wind up disappointed.

It’s a unique position because the Bears have two first-round picks, and one is at the top of the draft. It’s a very different conversation if they don’t have the pick from the Panthers or aren’t sitting at No. 1.

Generally teams have a very good idea about where things are headed with a young quarterback after three years and if the Bears straddled the fence with Fields, it would be a bit of an outlier. I think GM Ryan Poles can say he did a lot to give Fields an opportunity to succeed this season by acquiring wide receiver DJ Moore in the trade with the Panthers and using a first-round pick on right tackle Darnell Wright while also signing right guard Nate Davis in free agency. Moore has been outstanding — maybe even better than expected — and pass protection has been significantly better than in 2022.

Fields was fantastic in Sunday’s 37-17 victory over the Atlanta Falcons, throwing with timing and accuracy and making a handful of electric plays with his legs. It came on the heels of a ho-hum effort against the lowly Arizona Cardinals. The consistency piece has been fleeting, and there’s one game remaining in Green Bay, one more opportunity with 30 or so throws to be evaluated.

The Bears are very close to being a playoff team. I believe if they bring in a new QB, they are setting back the team at least a couple of years while he learns the NFL game. Thoughts? — @legendzombie

ExpandAutoplay

Image 1 of 182

Bears quarterback Justin Fields runs the ball in for a touchdown in the fourth quarter against the Lions at Soldier Field on Dec. 10, 2023. (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

If they go that route and get the right quarterback, it wouldn’t set them back. The Houston Texans are 9-7 and in the playoff hunt with rookie quarterback C.J. Stroud, and the cast around him hasn’t been great. He doesn’t have a DJ Moore to throw to, and the Texans have had a revolving door at a few spots on the offensive line because of injuries.

Ryan Poles said when he was hired his goal was to lead the franchise into a position where it could have sustained success, something that has been fleeting in these parts as the Bears have not had consecutive winning seasons since 2005-06. I’d argue the single greatest reason they’ve been unable to replicate that is they’ve had consistently average to well below average quarterback play. To this point, Poles has not looked like a guy seeking shortcuts to success or making decisions that might help right now but ultimately won’t carry the team to the overarching goal.

Could there be bumps in the road with a rookie quarterback? I’d be surprised if there were not. The Bears have had bumps in the road throughout this season. They’re still struggling for consistency as a passing offense — and I’m talking about coaches and all offensive players — and they are entering Week 18. The Bears are 27th in the league in passing (they finished 32nd in 2022), so if they replace the quarterback, it’s not as if they’re going to tumble in the rankings with a rookie starter. If they get the right guy, they might climb.

If Matt Eberflus returns, as reports indicate, is the 2024 season “win or else”? If that is the case, I fear the classic Bears misalignment continues between the coach, GM and QB. — @rradulski

Fair question, and I addressed this Monday after the win against the Falcons. My take is that while Eberflus could be perceived as entering a “must win” season in 2024, it’s entirely possible the power brokers at Halas Hall will not share that sentiment. Perhaps Eberflus is on much steadier ground and Ryan Poles, Kevin Warren and George McCaskey are quite happy with the work he has done and how he has navigated obstacles and challenges through the first two seasons. If that’s the case — and I am simply presenting this as an idea — then Eberflus should not be viewed as a guy on the hot seat at the start of the 2024 season.

“If you are doing things properly, which has never been done there before, you have to commit to three years of the quarterback, coach and the GM,” one league executive said in a conversation about this topic. “Otherwise you are doing the exact same thing that has been done over and over and over where you change the quarterback and then a year or two later, change the coach or you change the coach and then you change the quarterback. There’s been no continuity between those positions over the last several years. If you’re going to keep Poles, fine. If you’re going to keep Eberflus, you can’t give Eberflus a new quarterback and then fire him a year later.

“If you fire Eberflus a year from now and have Caleb (Williams), now you’re giving that next coach the same (expletive) you gave (Matt) Nagy, where he’s thinking, ‘Well, (Mitch Trubisky) isn’t my quarterback.’ Well, you took the job, so he is your quarterback.

“It’s interesting because at some point, where are these candidates going to come from? All of these head coaches that are getting fired. Who are going to be the seven to 10 new head coaches you are going to hire? Now you’re hiring seven to 10 offensive coordinators to go with those guys. And there are going to be some other OCs fired, right? Look at this year. Half the league had a replacement at offensive coordinator. There were 16 new offensive coordinators. Now you’re going to do that again this year. Where the hell are these people coming from? Where are you going to find them?

“I don’t know what they’re going to do, but they can’t keep going through this cycle where it’s not aligned all the way.”

Do you think the Bears attack the second edge need in the deep free-agent class, in the deep draft class or in a trade scenario? — @imtracti0n

For starters, I don’t think the crop of free-agent pass rushers is going to look quite as great in mid-March when the new league year begins as it appears right now. Franchise-type edge rushers in their prime rarely reach the open market. Will there be some talented players available? For sure.

In a perfect scenario, the Bears would draft to fill this spot. I like the idea of Montez Sweat, who turns 28 just before the start of next season, and a younger player. But saying that and making it happen, we’ll have to see. I also don’t believe this is a loaded class for edge rushers. There certainly isn’t a Myles Garrett sitting out there who would really take the lid off the discussion regarding what Ryan Poles should do with the No. 1 pick. As if the lid isn’t already off.

It was an encouraging team effort for the Bears in their victory over Atlanta, and Justin Fields elevated his play against the Falcons’ man coverage. However encouraging Justin’s performance was Sunday, it will be more difficult for Fields to repeat that performance against the Packers’ zone defense. I hope I’m wrong and Justin plays well, but I recall that he struggles against zone against man coverage. Can you supply QB1′s statistics when he is going against man-to-man defense vs. zone coverage? The information you offer will give insight into how the Bears approach what they will do with the No. 1 pick in the 2024 draft. Full disclosure: I want Justin to be QB1 for the Bears, but Justin is 9-27 as a starter and unfortunately (or depending on who you talk to, fortunately), the numbers are still there. — Steve K., South Bend, Ind.

Fields has been more successful this season when opponents are in man coverage, and the Falcons leaned heavily on that, playing man on nearly 90% of his drop-backs in the Bears’ 37-17 victory.

According to the NFL’s Next Gen statistics, here are Fields’ numbers versus man and zone coverages this season:

• Man: 54.1%, 11 TDs, 3 INTs, 1,066 yards, 6.8 yards per attempt, 81.4 QBR
• Zone: 66.0%, 5 TDs, 6 INTs, 1,348 yards, 6.9 yards per attempt, 26.4 QBR

There is a huge gap in his QBR for a couple of reasons. It’s easier for Fields to do damage as a runner against teams playing man coverage because defenders are running with their backs to the quarterback. Zone coverage has more eyes on the passer. He also has struggled at times to find throwing windows against zone coverage. Fields’ QBR versus man coverage is the fourth-highest in the NFL. The Dallas Cowboys’ Dak Prescott is tops at 90.8, and he really doesn’t pull the ball down and run very often.

Fields’ 26.4 QBR versus zone coverage ranks 28th in the league. The Jacksonville Jaguars’ Trevor Lawrence is tops at 72.5 followed by Houston Texans rookie C.J. Stroud (72.3).

I’d imagine you are correct and the Bears will see a heavy amount of zone coverage Sunday at Lambeau Field. The Packers played zone coverage 79% of the time in the season opener at Soldier Field. On the season, Fields has faced man coverage on 44.2% of drop-backs and zone on 55.8% of drop-backs.

Drafting a quarterback, even near the top of the first round, is highly risky. Recent examples include Mitch Trubisky, Trey Lance, Mac Jones and Zach Wilson. For every Patrick Mahomes there are several Carson Wentzes. Therefore, wouldn’t it be less risky for the Bears to continue to work toward improving Justin Fields and continue to build around him in the draft and free agency, especially given their bleak history drafting quarterbacks? — Jim A., Plymouth, Minn.

There’s also a chance for a Joe Burrow or a Justin Herbert or even a Tua Tagovailoa, and if the Bears owned a pick near the top of the 2020 draft — they were without a selection as they paid off the remaining balance of the Khalil Mack trade — I think they would have fired on one of those quarterbacks because coming off the 2019 season, the front office and coaching staff were ready to move on from Trubisky. There’s risk involved with any decision, and there are no sure things. I don’t believe Ryan Poles would be discouraged by the Bears’ history at the position if he sees a prospect he likes.

One of the reasons the Bears’ history of drafting quarterbacks in the first round is so bleak, to use your word, is that they haven’t taken enough swings at it. The Bears have drafted a quarterback in the first round only 11 times and stunningly went from 1952 to 1981 without taking one. You would think the franchise that brought the forward pass to professional football would have been a little more driven to address the position.

• 2021: Justin Fields
• 2017: Mitch Trubisky
• 2003: Rex Grossman
• 1999: Cade McNown
• 1987: Jim Harbaugh
• 1982: Jim McMahon
• 1951: Bob Williams
• 1948: Bobby Layne
• 1946: Johnny Lujack
• 1941: Frankie Albert
• 1939: Sid Luckman

What are the chances Jaylon Johnson is re-signed? And will it be a franchise tag? — @johnnmatrixx

My best guess is the Bears will wind up using the franchise tag (likely) or transition tag (less likely) in order to create more time to negotiate a multiyear extension with Johnson. Of course, it would be preferable if they get a deal done before having to use the tag, but many times these situations have a way of dragging out slowly. I think odds are good Johnson is in a Bears uniform next season, but you never know how these things will turn out.