The Chicago Bears haven’t operated like the same team they were a couple of years ago, at least not in the pre-draft process. For years, it looked like the organization set aside private meetings with prospects they had every intention of drafting, of trying to draft. Those meetings were used to cement their evaluations and ensure they didn’t miss any details. However, last year seemed to take a shift. Of the 22 names confirmed to have met with the Bears privately for a top 30 visit leading up to the draft, none of them were selected. Some were never available, but a large portion were on the board at least once. The Bears passed. This suggests the visits had undergone a shift in purpose. Bears offensive line coach Dan Roushar just confirmed it.
He explained to Foster Swift SPORTS TALK that the “30” visits were used on players the team has questions about. Maybe it’s a medical concern they want their own doctors to assess. Perhaps it’s the rumored character issues that the coaches can get a feel for by spending a day together with somebody. Then you have football IQ. Do they understand the game at a fundamental enough level to handle the large caches of information required to play in the league? The Bears use those visits to check if their information was wrong.
| Position | Player | School | Pre-Draft Concerns & Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| RB | Ashton Jeanty | Boise State | Volume load at the college level; potential for “tread on the tire” issues. |
| RB | Omarion Hampton | North Carolina | Lateral agility; sometimes criticized for being a “straight-line” power runner. |
| RB | Kaleb Johnson | Iowa | Pass protection skills; needs to improve consistency in blitz pickup. |
| RB | Brashard Smith | SMU | Smaller frame; questions about his ability to be a true “three-down” back. |
| WR | Isaiah Bond | Texas | Physicality against press coverage; thin frame may struggle with NFL-level jams. |
| WR | Tre Harris | Ole Miss | Top-end speed; scouts questioned if he could consistently separate at the next level. |
| WR | Kyle Williams | Washington St | Route-running polish; relied heavily on athleticism over refined technique. |
| WR | Jaylin Lane | Virginia Tech | Size limitations; primarily viewed as a slot-only or return specialist. |
| WR | Dontae Fleming | Tulane | Level of competition and limited production compared to Power 4 peers. |
| WR | Kelly Akharaiyi | Miss. State | Drops and inconsistent hands; occasionally struggled with concentration. |
| OT | Will Campbell | LSU | Arm length; measurements suggested a potential required move to Guard. |
| OT | Josh Conerly Jr. | Oregon | Play strength; needed to add functional mass to handle NFL bull-rushers. |
| OT | Anthony Belton | NC State | Footwork and speed out of his stance; occasionally sluggish against twitchy rushers. |
| OL | Jonah Savaiinaea | Arizona | Conditioning and weight management; questions about his ideal pro position. |
| G | Dylan Fairchild | Georgia | Lateral quickness in space; sometimes struggled when asked to pull or reach. |
| TE | Jalin Conyers | Texas Tech | In-line blocking; seen more as a “big receiver” than a traditional tight end. |
| DE | Shemar Stewart | Texas A&M | Production vs. Traits; elite physical tools but lacked high sack numbers in college. |
| DT | Omarr Norman-Lott | Tennessee | Run defense; undersized for an interior player, leading to anchoring issues. |
| LB | Nick Martin | Oklahoma State | Coverage instincts; occasionally slow to react to crossing routes in zone. |
| CB | Jahdae Barron | Texas | Top-end recovery speed; concerns about getting beat deep by burner WRs. |
| CB | Jordan Hancock | Ohio State | Injury history; durability was a primary focus for teams during the visit. |
| S | Andrew Mukuba | Texas | Tackling consistency; had a tendency to dive at ankles rather than wrap up. |
Dan Roushar speaks to a strategy that good organizations use.
If you look at teams like Baltimore, Detroit, and Seattle, they don’t use top 30 visits on players they end up drafting too often. Instead, it is often their way of helping determine whether they should remove certain names from their boards entirely. For example, Baltimore had a clean shot at both Tyleik Williams and Josh Simmons in the 1st round last year. However, they’d met with both before the draft. Neither was drafted. The Ravens opted to go with Malaki Starks instead, who they did not meet with.
It’s hard to argue with the strategy. All three of those teams have proven excellent at drafting over the past several years. Since the Bears shifted to it last year, their drafting has improved considerably as well. It seems that moving the top 30 visits to a more investigative approach does a great job of clearing the debris. In other words, it trims the fat from a draft board, making it easier to hone in on players with a realistic chance of being good at the NFL level. Dan Roushar clearly believes in it.
🔥 Subscribe to the Untold Chicago YouTube channel to hear Chicago legends tell stories you’ve never seen in headlines — real moments, real experiences, straight from the athletes themselves.
This should change how we view the Bears’ visits.
As of writing this, four names have surfaced who have met or will meet with the team shortly. When looking deeper, each of them comes with some red flags that might warrant the Bears needing a closer look. Running back Seth McGowan spent three months in jail for larceny, which raises questions about his character. Wide receiver De’Zhaun Stribling has an undisclosed injury history going back to his time at Oklahoma State. He also hasn’t developed as fast as many thought, raising questions about his grasp of the game.
Center Jager Burton also dealt with injury problems at Kentucky and snapping issues, too. Last but not least, linebacker Jimmy Rolder played four years at Michigan but didn’t become a starter until his senior season. The Bears may wish to see where he is in his development, given so little starting experience. As the list grows over the coming weeks, we should hear more of the same. If the Bears end up drafting anybody from it, that will mean the information they gathered was as good as it gets.
