In the last two parts of this series, the focus was on Ryan Poles and his efforts at building the Chicago Bears through the draft. This article is instead focused on his immediate predecessor, Ryan Pace. There are some who will be tired of discussing the 7-year GM of the Bears, and that’s fair. This article is not for them. Instead, this article is for those who are either curious about one series of objective measures of Pace or for those who believe it is possible to learn about implications from
this general manager’s career for others in the same profession–what can we learn about Ryan Poles’ challenges by studying those of Ryan Pace?
The Quarterbacks in the Room
It needs to be acknowledged that anything Pace might have done well was completely undermined by his selections at quarterback. He traded up both times and spent a pair of top-11 picks in different drafts selecting a pair of quarterbacks who ended up being unable to reach a second contract with the team. By cost, the picks sacrificed to get those two passers would be valued at #2 (Trubisky) or #9 (Fields). Officially, they took place at #2 and #9. By draft position, they ranked in the 27th and 21st percentile for QBs taken in their draft tier, as well. Therefore, when considering Pace’s drafting as a whole, this article will frequently exclude the value of these two high-cost, high-impact mistakes.
Offense vs Defense
Even once quarterbacks are excluded from the equation, Pace struggled when it came to drafting offensive players compared to his ability to draft defensive players, at least until the end of his time in Chicago. His QB-exclusive offensive drafting places him the 48th percentile, but his defensive drafting in in the 70th percentile. Pace was able to find at least two players in the upper third at all three levels of defense and they are spread evenly throughout position, but four of his nine “upper tier” offensive draft picks were running backs.
Compared to Ryan Poles, he was far less balanced as a GM, but he had at least one “top tier” defense draft each season, even in cases where it was simply a 7th-round pick that stayed in the league longer than expected. Here is how on a per-draft basis he compares to Ryan Poles, once quarterbacks are excluded from the picture.
It’s worth noting the volumetric advantage that Ryan Poles has, in that he made 1.5 more selections per year in his first three years than Poles did in his seven. However, despite making fewer total selections, Pace found more (non-QB) top-third offensive players in each draft; he also had more mistakes. Pace and Poles alike had very few true misses on defense, as well. However, Pace trailed in mediocre picks. On that note, Poles has only one defensive players in the 90th percentile or better, while Pace has five. Even when controlled for number of years in position, Pace found exceptional defenders at twice the rate of Poles. On the other side of the ball, Pace found roughly one 90th-percentile offensive player every other year; Poles has not yet done this (though 2025 might change that). Pace was always explicit in his desire to find “playmakers” in the draft, and it seems like he did so even if the cost was proportionately higher misses. Poles, on the other hand, seems substantially more conservative.
Year-to-Year Change
Ryan Pace, more or less, improved over time. He learned on the job. Sort of. In year three, his two most valuable selections were spent on Mitch Trubisky and Adam Shaheen. In year seven, he drafted Teven Jenkins and Dazz Newsome (and Justin Fields). In fact, just as Jenkins represented a known risk with his prior back injury, some of his biggest successes (like Eddie Jackson) also represented risks. Thus, while it seems fair to say that Pace did improve with his job over time, his fundamental draft tendencies remained the same. He took risks, he traded away selections, and he drafted well when it came to defense and running backs. He struggled to identify quarterbacks and other high-leverage offensive players.
If Poles extends on the same growth pattern as Pace but does not suffer the same drop-off, or even if his drop-offs are smaller, the Bears could very well see their fortunes as a franchise improve reliably.
No Void
Over the course of seven drafts, Ryan Pace made only five selections in Round 3 and Round 4 put together. So instead of a pair of peaks with a notable valley in the middle, Pace’s draft profile was fairly steady once quarterbacks are excluded.
Pace struggled in the first round, even independent of quarterback selection. Leonard Floyd was almost perfectly a middle-of-the-pack selection with a high value pick, Kevin White was a clear miss, and only Roquan Smith stood out as a special selection. In the second round, he also made a number of questionable selections. However, the general drafting trend besides that is strong. In fact, after the first two rounds, Pace’s 7-year run drafting as general manager was notably superior to Poles’ first 3-year span with Eberflus.
Ideally, a GM would be able to combine the “safety” of Ryan Poles in the first two rounds while adding the potential for dramatic successes like Ryan Pace. However, it is also worth noting that Pace did hit on an interesting approach to avoid the potential mediocrity of Round 3 and Round 4–he simply made very few of those selections, leveraging those picks instead for different opportunities. This is a potential avenue worthy of consideration for Poles as well, in that he needs playmakers as much as he needs role players.
Conclusions
Ryan Pace did not simply struggle because he failed to draft the right quarterbacks, and to claim oversimplifies the job ahead of Ryan Poles. Instead, Pace was unable to stabilize his success rate given the risky nature of his approach to the draft. Meanwhile, Poles might have managed to find a franchise quarterback, but his conservative approach is limiting Chicago’s chances to find impact players.
Finding talent in the “middle third” of each round of the draft is not a path to regular victory, and more than trading away too many picks and missing repeated high-value selections might be.
