Good morning!

I sat at the keyboard today, trying to decide what I wanted my big thought of the day to be, and I couldn’t land on one thing. As I continue experimenting with the daily newsletter format, I’ve been running into this occasionally and concluded that I don’t have to always have one big thought for the day.

So, here are some shorter thoughts on various things that caught my interest recently.

No-go on Fangio …

The Miami Dolphins and Vic Fangio agreed to part ways on Wednesday. The immediate reaction from Bears fans was: “Bring him home!”

I get that. Fangio was the author of the 2018 Bears defense that forced 36 turnovers and helped Chicago win the NFC North. It was a bright spot in an otherwise disappointing era of Bears football. The Bears have a DC spot open; Fangio is a free agent… But it’s not happening.

First and foremost, Fangio runs a 3-4 defense, and the Bears have spent the last two-plus years building out the personnel for a 4-3 defense with a heavy emphasis on Cover 2.

Secondly, while Nick Sirianni was non-committal on the idea on Wednesday, Adam Schefter has already reported that the Dolphins let Fangio out of his deal with the knowledge that he was planning on taking the Eagles DC job so that he could be closer to his family in Pennsylvania.

So, 2018 nostalgia aside, a Fangio “homecoming” simply isn’t a fit for the Chicago Bears.

The Bears drafting Brock Bowers at No. 9 isn’t that wild of an idea …

On Tuesday, I wrote about what the Bears could do with the ninth pick in the NFL Draft. I broke the story into categories: offensive weapon, offensive tackle, and edge rusher, and left the window open on a potential trade back (without getting into detail on what that might look like).

Along with Washington wide receiver Rome Odunze — and a handful of other receivers — I mentioned Brock Bowers as a potential target for the Bears at No. 9. There was some pushback on that, and I think that’s something I want to revisit here.

The contrarian argument is that the Bears have Cole Kmet, whom they signed to a four-year, $50 million extension last summer, so why would the Bears draft another tight end when they just extended their “starting tight end.” The first issue with that logic is that there can only be one “starting” tight end in the Bears’ offense.

Shane Waldron’s offense operated predominantly in 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) in 2023. That grouping accounted for 63.5 percent of their offensive snaps, and that’s normal for the modern-day NFL offense. Waldron’s offense’s use of 11 personnel ranked 17th in the league last season, so that 63.5 percent number isn’t as large as you would think.

Waldron’s offense ran 31.6 percent of his offensive snaps in either 12 or 13 personnel. 12 personnel features 1 RB, 2 TE, and 2 WR. 13 personnel features 1 RB, 3 TE, and 1 WR. So, Waldron was lining up two or more tight ends 31.6 percent of the time last season. The idea that the Bears can’t add another “starting” tight end is an archaic belief.

Cole Kmet is a very good tight end. I lobbied for him to get an extension, and he had a solid 2023 season. However, Kmet is not the dynamic, yards-after-the-catch playmaker that Brock Bowers is. Adding Bowers’ dynamic after the catch ability would add another dynamic weapon to the Bears’ offense. Bowers’ 689 yards after contact is the most by a college tight end in the last decade. The next closest tight end was Sam LaPorta, who turned out to be one heck of a player for the Detroit Lions this season.

Also …

People don’t understand football (and Justin Fields keeps making the same mistakes) …

There’s a clip going around X/Twitter this week of Justin Fields turning down an open look at D.J. Moore on a slant route in favor of hitting Cole Kmet for a six-yard gain on a sit route against the Packers in Week 18 via J.T. O’Sullivan (The QB School).

O’Sullivan criticizes Fields for choosing Kmet, and he’s not wrong. It’s a left-to-right read, and D.J. Moore is open and has space to make a play up the seam if Fields hits him. Instead, he passes on the timing throw and hits Kmet in the chest on a sit route with a defender behind him to make the tackle.

Some argue that a six-yard completion is a positive result, and they’re not wrong, in theory, but context matters! If Fields chooses Moore (his best playmaker) on the slant and delivers a strike, Chicago has a first down (and maybe more) instead of 3rd & 4.

Here’s the play (NSFW language!):

And here’s the screenshot that people are using to justify Fields’ decision to pass on Moore and go to Kmet:

This is a perfect example of a) why still photos should never be used in football film studies and b) how little people comprehend Xs and Os.

In this still frame, D.J. should already have the ball. At this point, and you can’t see it from this still (which is why they’re a garbage way of proving your point), Fields has already passed on Moore in his read and is throwing the ball to Kmet. Here’s my screenshot from the end zone angle of the All-22 on that play, proving that at the exact second that the above screenshot has Moore in that window, Fields is already throwing the ball to Kmet …

All you have to do is look at the body positioning of Quay Walker and Cole Kmet to see that’s a near-exact match. Fields has already passed on Moore and is in the motion of throwing to Kmet.

A few things …