I apologize in advance to readers who want a clear, quick argument in their Chicago Bears coverage. This is not that. It is, instead, an exploration of a quirk of data that I did not know existed until a few hours before writing this. I often begin researching articles with a simple data pull in order to understand the range of outcomes I’m dealing with–the equivalent of finding the “you are here” arrow on a map or directory. Most of the time, all this does is reassure me that I have a basic understanding
of the issue’s general parameters. Sometimes, though, I find something that itches my brain.
This time, I stumbled into some psychological poison oak.
Overview
I began with the observation that the Bears and the Bengals both had 35 sacks last season but that they took very different approaches to their defense in the offseason. I knew that, and I intended to use it as a starting point to question Chicago’s approach to the last couple of months (question, not criticize).
However, it turns out that five teams had exactly 35 sacks last season, and that tied them for the 7th-worst rate in the league. Listed in their original draft order, they are the Kansas City Chiefs (9th), the Cincinnati Bengals (10th), the Dallas Cowboys (12th), the Chicago Bears (25th), and the New England Patriots (31st). That is a very wide-ranging list in terms of on-field results and even other defensive metrics, for all that sacks are one of the most important factors impacting EPA. More interestingly, perhaps, is how aggressively (or not) each of these teams attempted to address their defense and even which players they acquired in the attempt to do so.
To set a baseline, here are the five teams in question measured across key metrics during the 2025 season (pegged to percentile performance in the league just to make things easy to compare). They are ranked with the latest draft order highest, to represent the best overall performance.
In other words, despite having identical sacks, the other defensive results were all over the place. The team with the best pressure rate in the league was also one of the worst in defensive EPA, and the only two playoff teams had some of the worst pressure rates. I expected a bit of noise, but I didn’t expect that much chaos.
The Teams
Cowboys
Defensive EPA/Play Rank: 32nd
Pressure Rank: 2nd (1st by rate)
Lost: no major losses
Gained: Malachi Lawrence (#23), Jaishawn Barham (#92), LT Overton (#137)
Summary: Despite having a very underwhelming sack number, the Cowboys excelled at creating pressure in 2025…it just didn’t do them any good in defensive performance. This is one of those anomalies that makes you check your data a couple of times to make sure the chart didn’t get inverted. To be clear, the connection between pressures and defensive EPA is not a myth. It’s pretty well-established, even if it is relatively minor. Obviously, though, it’s not the whole picture. They also had Matt Eberflus as a defensive coordinator, which explains a lot about how bad they were. Presumably, there is an addition by subtraction at work with his departure that should compound with the other additions (and Caleb Downs) to allow some of that pressure to become sacks and will help bring the defensive EPA performance out of the cellar. There is actually nowhere for the team to go but up, and it is possible that there could be an explosive amount of growth.
Outlook: By comparison excellent, probably landing on good
Bengals
Defensive EPA/Play Rank: 29th
Pressure Rank: 23rd (23rd by rate)
Lost: lost Trey Hendrickson (4 years/$112m) and Joseph Ossai (3 years/$34.5m)
Gained: Boye Mafe (3 years/$60m), Jonathan Allen (2 years/$25m), Dexter Lawrence (traded for Pick #10, 3 years/$70m), Cashius Howell (Pick #41), and Landon Robinson (Pick #226)
Summary: The Bengals rearranged some deck chairs at the top, losing Trey Hendrickson while picking up Dexter Lawrence and losing Joseph Ossai while signing Jonathan Allen. However, they also added a premier edge rusher in free agency and spent a premium pick on another one (and making a late investment in the line). They, too, should see improvements in their pressures and overall defensive performance, especially since the “loss” of Hendrickson is informed by the limited playing time he had in 2025. It will also be interesting to see the impact of Caleb Downs and Rueben Bains on their respective teams, as the Bengals traded out of the chance to take either of those players.
Outlook: Good
Bears
Defensive EPA/Play Rank: 21st
Pressure Rank: 25th (22nd by rate)
Lost: no major losses
Gained: added Neville Gallimore (2 years/$10m) and Jordan van den Berg (#213).
Summary: The Bears were part of a cluster of playoff teams with defensive EPA ranked 19th-24th, and they were the only one of those teams to spend a 1st-round pick on a defender in the 2026 Draft (with an asterisk for however some might want to categorize the Micah Parsons trade). Of teams in the 35-sack club, the Bears did the least in the offseason to attempt to improve their pass rush. In the words of one sports analyst, “it’s a bold move, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off.”
Outlook: Questionable
Chiefs
Defensive EPA/Play Rank: 12th
Pressure Rank: 18th (15th by rate)
Lost: Charles Omenihu (1 year/$4m).
Gained: Khiyris Tonga (3 years/$21m), Peter Woods (Pick #29), R Mason Thomas (Pick #40).
Summary: The Chiefs already had a strong defense that produced moderate pressure, and they made two high-cost draft investments while also having slightly stronger investments than losses in free agency. Per conventional wisdom, their pressures and therefore their overall performance should improve. This should therefore allow them to follow the model of an exceptional quarterback and a strong defense working together to power a playoff run.
Outlook: Good to very good
Patriots
Defensive EPA/Play Rank: 11th
Pressure Rank: 27th (24th by rate)
Lost: Khiyris Tonga (3 years/$21m) and K’Lavon Chaisson (1 year/$11m)
Gained: Dre’Mont Jones (3 years/$36.5m) and Gabe Jacas (#55)
Summary: The Patriots had a worse pressure rate than the Bears and the same number of sacks while still having a substantially superior defense. They are the closest to the Bears for how little they did to improve on defense in the offseason, but their defense was also at least a full tier better than Chicago’s.
Outlook: Good
Summary
Common sense suggests that the Cowboys should find their defense turning around rather quickly. The number of premium investments and the removal of Eberflus, plus a certain amount of statistical leveling, should see sacks and defensive EPA improve (after all, it couldn’t get worse, relatively speaking). Likewise, the Bengals should see greater improvement than Chicago in pressures and sacks.
The Chiefs had a better defense than Chicago in 2025, and they made much stronger investments up front. It should not be possible, reasonably speaking, for Chicago to catch them. The Patriots are another matter, though. They were behind Chicago in pressures created, they were tied in sacks, and they made at best modest investments in the pass rush. If the Patriots stay ahead of Chicago by a full tier while the Bengals and Cowboys gain ground (or overcome the Bears completely), there is clear ground to indict Chicago’s approach. However, if Chicago holds off either the Bengals or the Cowboys while managing to close ground on the Patriots, it would be hard to say that they failed to improve–even if there would still be room to question if they improved enough.
As I said at the outset, this is less an argument than it is a series of observations that five teams with very different ways of being below-average in getting to the quarterback have approached the issue. Of these teams, the two playoff teams did the least, but only one of those teams started with a good defense in the first place.
