ESPN is wrong about the Chicago Bears

In my day job, I am an English professor. This is relevant because in my hobby of writing about football, I frequently encounter people who forget that words mean things. ESPN just released a ranking of NFL positional groups that includes this statement: “you would be surprised by what you can learn sitting down and objectively grading and/or ranking each positional unit of all 32 teams.”

This is probably true. The author of the article should try it some time. “Objectively,” per Merriam-Webster, involves “evaluation with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions.” He then proceeds to just rattle off a bunch of rank lists without actually providing any criteria for how the lists were composed. To be clear–this is an author writing to the standard of “trust me bro” and vibes, and it says a lot about the state of ESPN and sports journalism in general.

Because a detailed analysis of everything wrong with the article would take framing and analysis that exceeds what the low quality of its argumentation deserves, I am simply going to focus on three Bears-centric rankings that make me wonder whether or not the author was even bothering.

ESPN ranks Chicago’s running back room as 24th in the NFL. In 2025, Chicago had the 4th-best rushing attack in the league by EPA/run, and it was one of only ten teams in the league that had positive value in EPA per run. Not only was Chicago third in total rushing yards, it was one of only three teams in the league with two running backs (Swift and Monangai) with at least 25 attempts in the top twenty in terms of success rate and EPA per rush. Those two were 12th and 21st in terms of yards per carry in terms for backs with at least 50 rush attempts, and 3rd and 19th in terms of total EPA. 

Either would be the basis of a rushing attack above 24th in the league, and Chicago has both of them. By any objective standard, Chicago has a 1-2 punch at running back that is near the top of the league. If the concern is that Chicago’s third running back is going to bring down the rest of the group, we would need to believe that 23 teams in the NFL have third-string running backs sufficient to make up the difference over this pairing.

Apparently, Chicago also has the 24th-best wide receiver room in the league, which makes me think that the author simply ranked a few teams and sort of just copy-pasted tables otherwise. Yes, DJ Moore has left Chicago. It is absolutely okay to have feelings about that. But remember, ESPN claims to be giving us an objective evaluation. 

Luther Burden was 4th in yards per route run in 2025, and their next three receivers (Odunze, Walker, and Raymond) also placed above 97th-place DJ Moore (traded away). Moore was productive, but he was the 61st-highest target share in the league but his production per route did not match that. Thus, Chicago’s 9th-best league passing attack in terms of EPA per pass did lose a high-volume receiver, but to suggest that they are in the lower third of the league seems to come down to a writer who went by big names and not actual production.

It is not simply homerism that causes me to push back against ESPN, though, because somehow they believe Chicago has the 22nd-best edge rusher room in the league. I. Martzing. Wish. 

Montez Sweat was 31st in total pressures in the league, and even among edge defenders he himself wasn’t even 22nd. But it’s about the entire room, and that’s where it gets even more bleak. Austin Booker wasn’t even in the top fifty. The Bears didn’t have another edge after him in the top hundred. It gets better in sacks, because there, at least, Sweat is in the top twenty. True, there’s a cliff after that before getting to Booker (again outside of the top fifty), but this is the closest to factual that this analysis can get. After those two men in rotation? Dayo Odeyingbo, who is paid like a quality starter and who plays like Dayo Odeyingbo. Also there’s Shemar Turner, who might or might not be healthy enough at some point to learn a new position. There seems to be no consistency to the ranking system, because if Sweat is enough to keep the Bears edge rushers out of the cellar, then Burden and Swift should elevate the receivers and running backs more.

Chicago did record the 21st-most sacks per game, which makes it possible that ESPN simply used that as the basis of this ranking, but if so they seem to have forgotten that sacks come from places besides the edge and that sacks matter little if the next time the passer is allowed to complete without pressure or if the other team can run to the outside.

Stay in school, kids. At worst, use an AI engine–or a dictionary–to define some key words. Maybe trust in more than vibes to make an argument. Most importantly, remember that just because someone claims to be making an objective review or providing fact-based content doesn’t make it true.