Bears 2026 Offseason Preview: Identifying 5 Potential ‘Surprise’ Moves

With the legal negotiation period quickly approaching, teams all around the league are gearing up to execute their offseason plans. For the first time in what feels like forever, the Chicago Bears aren’t viewed as one of the NFL’s top “buyers” after finishing 11-6 and earning their first postseason victory in 15 seasons.

That said, fans should brace for the potential of a few surprise moves along the way. After all, head coach Ben Johnson and his coaching staff are entering Year 2 of their leadership over the roster. While the front office has largely remained the same, adjustments based on need and preference tend to follow new coaching staffs, especially early in their tenures.

Following a surprising NFC North title, the Bears will look to do something they haven’t accomplished in close to 20 years: Have back-to-back winning seasons. While their needs might not be as pressing as usual, there’s little question that they still have work to do as they look to build themselves into a perennial Super Bowl contender. With the table set on yet another offseason, let’s take a look at five potential surprising moves to keep an eye on as we head into March.

Trading Receiver DJ Moore As A Salary Dump

Moore has been one of the bigger talking points for fans and media alike since the conclusion of their final playoff game in mid-January. No matter what side you take, it’s easy to see a path to the Bears wanting to move in a different direction. The biggest issue is that Moore’s recently signed four-year extension didn’t actually kick in until the start of this offseason.

On paper, Moore’s production has continued to dip over the last few seasons. Some might point to a lack of chemistry between him and quarterback Caleb Williams, while others might see a player in Moore that is starting to decline, even if the trend is not as drastic. No matter where you sit on this subject, when all the team’s pass catchers were healthy, it was easy to argue that Moore was the Bears’ fourth receiving option. Does that garner a $28.5 million per year price tag? Absolutely not, but because of the extension, the Bears face a tough decision in the coming months, assuming they are exploring avenues to get rid of him.

In a straightforward release situation, the veteran receiver would cost the Bears an additional $6.985 million in cap space, on top of his $28.5 million cap hit. That, of course, assumes it would come before June 1st. The numbers slightly move in their favor with a Post-June 1st designation, where they would save $1.015 million, while still eating a whopping $27.485 million in dead money. Suffice to say, releasing Moore, no matter the designation (or timing) in 2026, is not going to be an option.

Due to his downward turn in production over the last two seasons, it’s hard to envision many teams lining up to take on his contract and give up a premium pick. That’s why most trade scenarios would be viewed as a salary dump situation, or a potential add-on to a bigger trade involving a player coming back from the other team.

Considering the team’s current cap situation, Moore’s salary could easily be converted for more savings (in a restructure) than any other player on the roster. One way or another, it’s hard to see a scenario where Moore goes into the regular season playing on a $28.5 million cap charge. The ideal situation likely leads to a trade. Still, if they value his veteran leadership and want to keep him around for another season, they could restructure his deal, save $16.5 million in the process, and still save $11 million on a pre-June 1st release next year.

Releasing Running Back D’Andre Swift instead of An Upgrade On The Free Agent Market

On paper, the Bears’ running game took massive strides in 2025 under head coach Ben Johnson. Despite ongoing calls for the team to force an upgrade at the running back position, Johnson and his offensive coaching staff were able to take what was projected to be a Bottom-5 group and turn it into a Top 3 rushing attack.

If Chicago opted to run it back with the same duo of Swift and Kyle Monangai, not many would question it. That said, it’s easy to wonder if they’re quietly shopping potential upgrades behind closed doors. With Monangai under cheap control for another three years and $7.47 million of Swift’s $8.803 million cap hit for 2026 recoupable, it’s easy to see why the Bears might be weighing their options in the free agent market.

Swift is in the final year of a three-year, $24 million deal that he signed at the start of free agency in 2024, and although his cap hit this year would be slightly lower than last year, no one should be surprised if they choose to upgrade through a crop of quality free agents.

On paper, both Breece Hall and Kenneth Walker III make the most sense. Hall is the best all-around back, especially when it comes to his abilities as a receiver out of the backfield. Walker finished the season as the Super Bowl MVP, but he’s a more limited player, and there are durability concerns. Another name to keep an eye on is Tyler Allgeier, though one might argue that his skill set is similar enough to Monangai’s that adding him would be redundant.

In a scenario where the Bears effectively replaced Swift through free agency, it’s fair to expect that his release wouldn’t come until the team was able to secure his replacement. That would be a similar approach to what the Green Bay Packers did when they waited to release Aaron Jones until they had an agreement in place with Josh Jacobs.

Because Swift is in the final year of his contract, there are no current ways to lower his cap hit for 2026. If they decide that Swift is worth keeping around, they could also choose to give him a one- or two-year extension to help lower his number. That said, if they replace him in free agency, whoever they sign will likely have a similar (if not lower) cap figure for 2026.

Parting Ways With An Injured Defensive Veteran That Would Yield Little-To-No Cap Savings

Last year, the Bears were among the league’s top spenders. Although the majority of their new additions worked out, it’s not surprising that they ended up with a few bad contracts in the process. Injuries will always play their roles in a team’s season, but sometimes it’s clear that a player wasn’t worth the money they were paid, even when they were healthy. The Bears have three names that fit into that category, but only two of them feel like situations where they could move on if prompted. Of the three “busts”, Dayo Odeyingbo and T.J. Edwards stand out as the two who could effectively be replaced.

Odeyingbo was on pace to have his worst season as a pro before going down with the dreaded torn Achilles. Unfortunately for the team, his $20.5 million cap hit ranks fifth-highest on the team, and even with a Post-June 1st release, he would save them a maximum of $3 million against the cap in 2026. Historically, players are nowhere near full strength in Year 1 coming off a torn Achilles, which means at best, he should be counted on as a back-of-the-rotation player for the upcoming season.

Edwards is yet another player whose money has not aged well. Unlike Odeyingbo or Grady Jarrett, the veteran linebacker was already on the roster but received a nice two-year, $20 million extension before the start of last season. While this was a move I never understood, I didn’t expect it to age this poorly, this quickly. Edwards was injured on and off all year in 2025, and following a gruesome ankle injury late in the season, it’s fair to wonder if he’ll be back at full strength for the start of the regular season. Edwards carries a $10.833 million cap hit, and in a best-case scenario, the team can only save $500,000 from a post-June 1st release.

Since both Odeyingbo and Edwards will be coming off serious injuries, it’s worth wondering whether the team will push to reach an injury settlement with the players, helping them recoup some of that money in 2027. Both players will be prime release candidates next offseason, but fans shouldn’t be surprised if they try to cut bait earlier than that, if given the opportunity.

Extension Candidates That Might Not Seem Obvious At First Glance

As with most offseasons, extensions are built into most teams’ plans. General manager Ryan Poles and his front office have never hesitated to hand out new money where they see fit. Last season, they extended Edwards, Kyler Gordon, and Joe Thuney. While I’m not sure I see that many occurring this year, it’s fair to wonder if the team might be looking to hand out extended years in exchange for lower cap hits.

The list of players due to extensions includes a few names, but the ones that fit this particular category are few and far between. While it’s fair to assume that the Bears will soon make Darnell Wright one of the highest-paid right tackles in the league, this particular point will be more focused on extending players who are still productive but could use some cap-saving measures.

Tight end Cole Kmet stands out as the most obvious player to fit into this category. The former second-round pick is halfway into his four-year, $50 million extension, but almost all of his guarantees have run out. While he’s due to make $11.6 million this season, the team could save all but $3.2 million with a traditional release. Although his production went down (as expected) last season, he’s still a valuable member of this offense, and someone the team will likely want to keep around. In a worst-case scenario, Poles could simply restructure his deal and save $4.393 million, but it would make a potential release in 2027 a little more painful. The most likely resolution to this saga is a one-to-two-year extension in which Kmet receives more guarantees while his cap hits over the next two seasons are lowered. This would be a similar route to how the Buffalo Bills handled Dawson Knox.

The other player that could make some sense in this scenario is Joe Thuney. While it’s fair to wonder how much longer the 34-year-old plans on playing, a one-year extension could help lower his cap hit enough in 2026 and 2027 to make it worth it. The other option for Thuney would be a max restructure, which would involve reworking his contract to add void years after 2027. This would require his permission, but if he’s planning on hanging it up at the end of his recently signed extension, there’s little “risk” for him in agreeing to this type of move.

No matter how it all plays out, don’t be surprised to see the Bears make a few “surprise” moves that don’t involve releases to keep players on the roster, while in turn saving cap space for the upcoming offseason. These moves would likely be made on an as-needed basis.

The Use Of Void Years In Free Agent Contracts

The last of these possibilities involves a bit more uncharted territory, at least regarding the current front office. Although it feels like an eternity ago, former general manager Ryan Pace took just about every measure when it came to maximizing his year-to-year cap flexibility. While many fans who remember those times might be scared off by the use of restructures and void years, it’s worth a quick reminder that he kept doubling down on a bad, aging roster.

While I’m not comfortable with Poles taking an all-out approach to 2026, mixing in void years in new deals and restructuring current players is a good way to maximize their space in 2026, without damaging themselves too much down the road. Earlier in the week, I wrote about the team’s current cap situation and how it could impact 2027. The Bears will have plenty of routes that they can take to clear space, and more importantly, they can lean on those moves without worrying too much about the impact they’ll have in future years. They’ll have more flexibility next year, both on the surface and in the way of veteran releases.

Keeping the focus on 2026, the use of void years should be a factor only for players currently not under contract due to free agency. Sure, they could opt to max restructure a deal or two, or even execute an extension with void years attached, but the most likely scenario remains that Poles and his front office will build in void years on certain players in their upcoming free agent haul.

For those who aren’t familiar with void years, it’s simply a way for a team to give a player their market value (for the life of the contract) while keeping cap hits lower in early years, but also incurring a flat dead cap charge at the end of that contract. It’s worth noting that the use of void years only matters once that contract comes to an end, which means if they used them on a 26-year-old player that signs a three-year deal, and at the end of that deal, he signs an extension, the dead money would not trigger when the extension kicks in. We’ve seen teams like the New Orleans Saints (among many others) take advantage of exactly that.

In the end, void years are a way of kicking the can down the road, similar to restructuring contracts to create immediate cap space. With that in mind, it’s common practice and something that every contending team does yearly to maximize their ability to keep their own talent and add additional players in free agency. I’ll predict that Poles start to use void years with at least a couple of free agents in March, even if the void years don’t account for a large chunk in each contract.

Read the full article here