Skip to main content
Bear Digest

Suggestions of Garrett Bradbury Trade Fail to Realize One NFL Reality

Talk of trading away Garrett Bradbury after the selection of Logan Jones in the draft is premature and unrealistic, considering what happens every NFL season.
Gene Chamberlain|
Garrett Bradbury is the starting center and if he loses the job to Logan Jones, he'd be a valued backup.
Garrett Bradbury is the starting center and if he loses the job to Logan Jones, he'd be a valued backup. | Chicago Bears On SI Photo: Chicago Bears video

This Bears draft hits you right in the face.

It's not coming at anybody like a sneaky left hook or an uppercut. The strong part of their draft is obvious and so, too, is the weakness.

Hint: They're counting on two guys coming off IR after severe injuries, and a group of guys with a combined 1 1/2 total NFL sacks to back up starting edge rushers Montez Sweat and Austin Booker.

This much was apparent from anonymous comments made by NFL executives in an article by The Athletic's Mike Sando about each NFC draft class. The comments are reported to have come from executives whose names were shielded. In the case of the comments about Bears picks there was really no reason to shield because they weren't really controversial, although a few were downright stupid.

Applauding Dillon Thieneman

No one prior to the draft and almost no one afterward had a negative thing to say about first-round pick Dillon Thieneman, a player who most mock drafts had going prior to No. 25.

“The safety is going to be a good player,” one executive told The Athletic. “We were high on him. He is ball-savvy, has some versatility from a blitz and coverage standpoint.”

This couldn't better describe the type of safety who succeeds in a Dennis Allen defensive scheme. They had a ballhawk last year with Kevin Byard, but faster and younger finds it easier to be more versatile, the ideal quality for Allen's scheme.

Trade Bradbury?

The article suggested the possibility of Garrett Bradbury being traded by the Bears to a team needing a center now that they have selected Logan Jones, although no unnamed executive was actually quoted as saying this.

"They're the same guy: both undersized, tough technicians," one unnamed executive was quoted as saying.

Perhaps this was the basis for a really idiotic suggestion.

At 299 pounds, Jones is a bit undersized compared to some NFL centers, but not by much.

Trading away Bradbury could be one of the dumbest suggestions made by someone who is supposed to know the NFL, whether it was the author or an NFL executive. Even if they knew Jones could come right in, start, and play effectively from Day 1, it makes no sense to deal away depth.

If it came down to trading the backup center to get a premier pass rusher it would be another thing entirely, but teams don't usually offer up sack machines for reserve guys who center the ball.

Besides, nothing is guaranteed in the NFL and you need depth so that some undrafted type isn't suddenly entrusted with protecting Caleb Williams from blitzes in the A gap.

The article seemed to suggest it wouldn't be smart to carry a center who would only be available to play that position on game day and not back up other spots. It is true they would have to do this because Bradbury doesn't play another position. He could simply be inactive and they could finish games in case of injury with Jonah Jackson or even Joe Thuney at center—if he can play tackle and guard he can surely play center. Then they could have Bradbury ready the next week as a ready-made starter.

They only are paying Bradbury $5.7 million, $1.5 million more than they paid Ryan Bates to sit around and do nothing but be an insurance policy last year.

Regardless, if it turns out Jones can play immediately, it shouldn't necessarily mean trading away his veteran backup. That's discounting a long-held reality of the NFL, which says everyone will be injured at some point.

Captain Obvious rides again

The only other anonymous comment made by an NFL executive about the Bears to The Athletic was as valuable as the comment about trading Bradbury.

The Bears never found another edge rusher in the draft and have taken a beating for this on social media.

“Maybe they should have traded up?” one unnamed exec offered.

Thank you for the real insight Mr. Unnamed NFL Executive or wherever that quote actually originated.

Just one question: If you don't need the depth and can simply trade it away at center, then why are the Bears getting criticized by everyone for not getting depth at edge rusher in Round 2 of the draft?

Using the same logic expressed within this article by The Athletic about Bradbury, the Bears should have drafted an edge rusher and then traded away Montez Sweat.

X: BearsOnSI

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Loading recommendations... Please wait while we load personalized content recommendations

Published
Gene Chamberlain
GENE CHAMBERLAIN

Gene Chamberlain has covered the Chicago Bears full time as a beat writer since 1994 and prior to this on a part-time basis for 10 years. He covered the Bears as a beat writer for Suburban Chicago Newspapers, the Daily Southtown, Copley News Service and has been a contributor for the Daily Herald, the Associated Press, Bear Report, CBS Sports.com and The Sporting News. He also has worked a prep sports writer for Tribune Newspapers and Sun-Times newspapers.

Home/News