In my day job, I am an English professor. This is relevant because in my hobby of writing about football, I frequently encounter people who forget that words mean things. ESPN just released a ranking of NFL positional groups that includes this statement: "you would be surprised by what you can learn sitting down and objectively grading and/or ranking each positional unit of all 32 teams."
This is probably true. The author of the article should try it some time. "Objectively," per Merriam-Webster, involves "evaluation with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions." He then proceeds to just rattle off a bunch of rank lists without actually providing any criteria for how the lists were composed. To be clear–this is an author writing to the standard of "trust me bro" and vibes, and it says a lot about the state of ESPN and sports journalism in general.
Because a detailed ***** ysis of everything wrong with the article would take framing and ***** ysis that exceeds what the low quality of its argumentation deserves, I am simply going to focus on three Bears-centric rankings that make me wonder whether or not the author was even bothering.
ESPN ranks Chicago's running back room as 24th in the NFL. In 2025, Chicago had the 4th-best rushing attack in the league by EPA/run, and it was one of only ten teams in the league that had positive value in EPA per run. Not only was Chicago third in total rushing yards, it was one of only three teams in the league with two running backs (Swift and Monangai) with at least 25 attempts in the top twenty in terms of success rate and EPA per rush. Those two were 12th and 21st in terms of yards per carry in terms for backs with at least 50 rush attempts, and 3rd and 19th in terms of total EPA.
Either would be the basis of a rushing attack above 24th in the league, and Chicago has both of them. By any objective standard, Chicago has a 1-2 punch at running back that is near the top of the league. If the concern is that Chicago's third running back is going to bring down the rest of the group, we would need to believe that 23 teams in the NFL have third-string running backs sufficient to make up the difference over this pairing.
#author
This is probably true. The author of the article should try it some time. "Objectively," per Merriam-Webster, involves "evaluation with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions." He then proceeds to just rattle off a bunch of rank lists without actually providing any criteria for how the lists were composed. To be clear–this is an author writing to the standard of "trust me bro" and vibes, and it says a lot about the state of ESPN and sports journalism in general.
Because a detailed ***** ysis of everything wrong with the article would take framing and ***** ysis that exceeds what the low quality of its argumentation deserves, I am simply going to focus on three Bears-centric rankings that make me wonder whether or not the author was even bothering.
ESPN ranks Chicago's running back room as 24th in the NFL. In 2025, Chicago had the 4th-best rushing attack in the league by EPA/run, and it was one of only ten teams in the league that had positive value in EPA per run. Not only was Chicago third in total rushing yards, it was one of only three teams in the league with two running backs (Swift and Monangai) with at least 25 attempts in the top twenty in terms of success rate and EPA per rush. Those two were 12th and 21st in terms of yards per carry in terms for backs with at least 50 rush attempts, and 3rd and 19th in terms of total EPA.
Either would be the basis of a rushing attack above 24th in the league, and Chicago has both of them. By any objective standard, Chicago has a 1-2 punch at running back that is near the top of the league. If the concern is that Chicago's third running back is going to bring down the rest of the group, we would need to believe that 23 teams in the NFL have third-string running backs sufficient to make up the difference over this pairing.
#author
2 days ago
