There Is “Mutual Interest” in a Reunion with Bears RB David Montgomery
If there’s one thing we can almost always count on with the Chicago Bears offense, it’s the presence of a sturdy, reliable ground game.
The names and running styles may change season-to-season. But every year, the Bears find a way to field a solid rushing attack no matter the coach, scheme, or backs in the backfield.
With that being said, I’m confident the Bears will put together another fine rushing attack next season. But who will be part of the mix? We can assume quarterback Justin Fields will be spearheading the attack (though we’d prefer if he scaled back on the volume of runs). Khalil Herbert is ready to enter Year 3 of his rookie deal and is certainly talented. He’d be the presumptive RB1 if David Montgomery doesn’t return in 2023.
And then there’s Montgomery, 25, who will be a free agent this offseason. And in a class brimming with headliners at the position, like Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs, Tony Pollard, and Miles Sanders. In fact, that quartet of free agent rushers could even wind up on the Bears’ radar this offseason. But before we get there, Chicago could always choose to stick with Montgomery.
Reunion w/ Bears RB David Montgomery
And in answering mailbag questions at The Athletic, Adam Jahns explains that there actually IS mutual interest in a reunion.
Montgomery can’t do everything that Saquon Barkley does. He’s a different back than Miles Sanders and Tony Pollard. But re-signing him is also a different conversation. The Bears want what Montgomery provides.
“I love his mentality, how he plays the game,” Poles said. “I told him that to his face.”
The interest is mutual, too.
The running back market can be difficult to predict. Some teams will prefer bargain deals and/or to select one in the draft. The Bears, though, have the cap space and seemingly the desire to get a deal done with Montgomery. With so many needs, there is no point in creating another before the draft. Re-signing Montgomery makes sense.
Nothing like dancing with the devil you know. And, frankly, I can’t blame the Bears if they decide to go down that path. It’s safe and reliable. In an offseason that could go wild in any number of ways, locking in some security wouldn’t be a bad thing.
There are times when we, as fans, spend way too much time discussing what a player can’t do instead of focusing on what they can do. And I feel as if that happens with Montgomery. So let’s take a moment to hash out why re-signing Montgomery would make sense.
Value in Continuity
Rewarding home-grown talent (even if that player wasn’t chosen by the current, GM Ryan Poles) would send a positive message to that locker room. That isn’t something to take lightly. Montgomery is a popular locker room leader for a team that hasn’t had too much stability in recent years. In other words, it would be good for players (and their agents) to see the Bears taking care of their guys.
Value in Versatility
Montgomery does a little bit of everything well that you’d want from a running back. He is tough to tackle because his legs keep churning through contact. Montgomery is also a quality pass catcher and solid in picking up blitzes. Not every back does those things well. So we shouldn’t take it for granted when one does it as well as Montgomery.
Value in Intangibles
The human element can get overlooked in football at times. There wasn’t much in terms of positives to take away from the Marc Trestman era. But one of the most important lessons I learned is that locker room character matters. And it probably matters more than some would care to admit. With that in mind, we should recognize when you’ve got good vibes from certain players. Monty definitely fits the bill in that regard.
We’ll continue keeping an eye on Montgomery rumors as the offseason hums along. Maybe the two sides can come together on an agreement that keeps a familiar face in tow. After all, Jahns is right in pointing out it would be counterproductive to create a new need by dumping Montgomery. Especially when there are already so many patches to fill elsewhere. And with Chicago being more than $90 million under the cap, there is room to make a deal.