The offensive struggles of the Bears against the Browns reveal a broader issue beyond Justin Fields.
The Sunday game was meant to serve as a litmus test for evaluating the progress of the Bears' offense under the guidance of offensive coordinator Luke Getsy and quarterback Justin Fields.
The Cleveland Browns, known for their formidable defense, presented a stern challenge. However, the Browns were dealing with injuries, and there was a noticeable disparity between how successful offenses fared against them compared to struggling ones. Teams with above a .500 record averaged 27.5 points per game against the Browns, while those below .500, such as the Steelers, Cardinals, Seahawks, Titans, and Broncos, managed just 15.7 points on average.
In essence, good offenses found ways to score against the Browns, while weaker offenses faltered.
The 20-17 loss to the Browns highlighted the true nature of the Bears' offense � a unit with a handful of talented playmakers, an evolving quarterback, but lacking a coherent strategy or spark unless provided by the quarterback or playmakers themselves.
During the game in Cleveland, the Bears' offense struggled for the most part. They scored only one offensive touchdown, which came after Eddie Jackson's interception return to the 1-yard line. It took them eight plays, with four negated by penalties, to punch it in.
Chicago's running game was virtually nonexistent, as the Browns controlled the interior, and Fields faced relentless pressure. DJ Moore was limited to just four catches for 52 yards.
Getsy, the offensive coordinator, seemed to have few answers for the Cleveland defense, which was missing several key players. Some questionable play calls, such as the failed third-and-3 sweep to Tyler Scott and the fourth-and-1 run by Fields that resulted in no gain, added to the offensive woes.
In the fourth quarter, after the Browns tied the game, the Bears had an opportunity to put together a winning drive but instead went three-and-out.
There's ample blame to go around for the offensive struggles in Cleveland. Fields acknowledged the need for better play on his part, as he went 19-for-40 with 166 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions (both on Hail Mary attempts). However, the larger issue at play was the Bears' inability to seize control of the game when their defense was dominating.
In the drives leading up to Amari Cooper's game-tying touchdown with 3:08 remaining, the Bears failed to capitalize:
- 3 plays, -4 yards (Punt)- 9 plays, 47 yards (FG)- 3 plays, -9 yards (Punt)- 7 plays, 32 yards (Turnover on downs)- 3 plays, 6 yards (Punt)- 6 plays, 14 yards (Punt)
Wide receiver Darnell Mooney believed the issues stemmed from mentality and a lack of killer instinct. He expressed dissatisfaction with the team's comfort in the third quarter when they should have remained aggressive.
Moore echoed Mooney's sentiments, acknowledging a lull in the third quarter and the need for more explosive plays against a tough defense.
While blame can be placed on individual players and aspects of the game, Sunday's loss exposed a more significant problem that extends beyond the quarterback or coordinator. It highlighted issues that originate at the top and trickle down.
For a team that had previously surrendered double-digit, fourth-quarter leads this season, there was no excuse for easing off the pedal. Perhaps the message isn't resonating, the offensive plan lacks clarity against strong defenses, or other factors are at play.
In the end, while the spotlight often falls on Fields and his future, Sunday's loss and the offensive struggles revealed deeper-rooted issues that may prove more challenging to address than simply changing the quarterback or coordinator.
| POLL | ||
18 DECEMBRE | 68 ANSWERS The offensive struggles of the Bears against the Browns reveal a broader issue beyond Justin Fields. Is Justin Fields the problem in Chicago? | ||
| yes | 13 | 19.1 % |
| No | 55 | 80.9 % |
| List of polls | ||
