Some power rankings didn't quite know what to make of a Bears win over the San Francisco 49ers in the opener.
It barely moved the needle on their low ratings with most sites, but this wasn't the case at all when they lost to their rivals, the Green Bay Packers.
It's as if the bottom fell out on the Bears and they were exposed as pretenders after one week.
Especially with the website, "The Ringer," the Bears were put through the ringer. Austin Gayle's article about their rankings featured the Bears in the spotlight and blasted Justin Fields much like Mike Martz did last week in a web video.
In the Ringer's rankings, the Bears dropped from 28th to last in the league.
Gayle said Fields is "...holding the ball too long, his receivers aren't getting open, and the offensive line is bad. This isn't a 'chicken or egg' situation; it's a 'the entire coop is up in flames, please make it stop' situation."
Here's where they ranked elsewhere:
The Bears are 30th here and Conor Orr comments: "Justin Fields looks better in Year 2, though he keeps thudding against the hard ceiling created by this roster."
It's probably a bit generous for Fields considering he threw for only 70 yards on 7-of-11 against the Packers.
The Bears dropped three places to 30th and CBS writer Pete Prisco offers up the tired statement that the team hasn't exactly helped Justin Fields "...a ton with what's around him."
Fields had a golden opportunity to hit wide open Equanimeous St. Brown Sunday night with a game-changing TD bomb and didn't even see him.
The Bears fell three spots to 28th. Bears beat writer Courtney Cronin found the fault in their big rushing game, with regards to balance.
"Sure, the Bears ran the ball effectively behind David Montgomery's 15 carries for 122 yards, but Chicago's offense must generate some semblance of a passing attack to not make themselves one-dimensional and easy to defend."
The Bears fell from 25th to 29th and Frank Schwab made a list of all the team's wide receivers to make catches this season. It's a short list with few catches listed, as anyone following the team would know, and as could be expected from a team ranked last in passing after two weeks.
The Sporting News
Vinnie Iyer dropped the Bears from 19th to 23rd, which might be a bit generous considering their offensive imbalance. Iyer pointed out the "reality check," the Bears defense got going from Trey Lance on a sloppy field in the rain to their longtime antagonist, Aaron Rodgers.
Now ranked 25th by Fox after being 17th, the Bears actually had a compliment from David Helman when he said "There are the makings of some decent football here." Helman does question how they can get a true assessment of Fields' abilities if they allow him to throw only 11 times.
No doubt Luke Getsy has much to answer for this week.
Now ranked 29th by USA Today, the Bears' lack of receivers is again blasted here by Nate Davis, who concludes, "You're on your own Justin Fields." It's not quite accurate when he has St. Brown running wide open upfield with his hand up and Fields doesn't even see him.
The huge drop from 25th to 30th might seem a bit harsh considering the opponent Sunday but Dan Hanzus offers a refreshingly deeper comment than something about Justin Fields lacking support. "Chicago was outclassed, particularly on defense in the run game," Hanzus wrote. It showed he actually might have watched some or all of the game, unlike with comments left at other sites.
Pro Football Network
They fell to 28th and Dalton Miller provided some keen insight even if this website has one of the poorest displays for rankings ever invented.
Miller pointed out how they had only 11 first downs before the two-minute warning and that Fields had more rushing attempts than pass attempts until late in the fourth quarter. Very true and it's difficult to blame him when he isn't allowed the chance to compete. Then again, when it's staring him right in the face as with St. Brown being wide open for a touchdown and ignored, maybe they are better off running more often.
Fields has as much to prove as Getsy after last week.