True or false: Chicago Bears receiver DJ Moore’s frustrations were overblown

Well, that was easy.

The Chicago Bears welcomed the Carolina Panthers to Soldier Field on Sunday and then sent them home with a 36-10 loss as a parting gift , delivering a performance as impressive as it was dominant.

The Bears offense rolled up more than 400 yards and scored five touchdowns while the defense contributed four sacks and three takeaways. The blowout gave the Bears a pretty strong tailwind as they headed to London for a Week 6 clash against the Jacksonville Jaguars.

There’s a lot to unpack , and Tribune reporters Colleen Kane and Dan Wiederer work through four true-or-false questions ahead of Sunday’s game.

True or false? DJ Moore’s breakout performance showed that the talk of his early frustrations was overblown.

Colleen Kane: False.

OK, if you’re talking about some of the social media investigations into Moore’s facial expressions and body language, that was maybe a little overblown. But even Moore admitted last week it was “a little bit” hard to be patient as he and Caleb Williams tried to get on the same page.

“And then it’s (also) not,” Moore said, “because we were all rookies at one point, being a vet. So I know what he’s going through. You can’t be too frustrated. I mean, you can be frustrated within the way you’re playing as a player, but not at a young guy who’s still coming along.”

It’s only natural that a player who has topped 1,150 receiving yards four times in his career would be anxious to get going when he had just 189 yards through four games. It certainly was worth keeping an eye on to see if any frustrations boiled over.

That’s why Sunday’s breakthrough, in which Moore had five catches for 105 yards and two touchdowns, was so big for the Bears. You captured the scene after Moore’s 30-yard touchdown catch — his second of the day after a 34-yarder in the first quarter — well after the game.

Moore’s celebration was a release of all the emotions that had built up as he struggled to get going last month.

Column: DJ Moore erupted after a TD pass from Caleb Williams. It felt significant for the duo — and for the Chicago Bears.

Dan Wiederer: That howl Moore let out after his second score was reminiscent of the one Williams let out the moment the Bears drafted him in April. It was so genuine and emotion-filled. And when I asked Moore about the heightened energy he felt in that moment, he smiled wide.

“I had a lot of energy,” Moore said. “You know why? Because we had been hoping on that play. And we finally connected on it.”

There’s no doubt it was a “Finally!” moment for both players as they work on their connection. Moore considers himself a pretty patient dude overall. But in Week 4, while dismissing the suggestion that his patience was being tested in the season’s first month, he did offer this:

“I mean, it’s a thin line. And I think I’m below the line (by) like 2 inches.”

After Sunday, he may have dropped 7 or 8 inches below that line.

I said throughout last week that I wasn’t concerned about Moore’s frustration becoming a bigger issue. But I did want to keep an eye on how he handled his impatience and channeled his energy in ways that were productive for him, Williams and the team as a whole.

Sunday’s production should offer satisfaction and the opportunity to decompress briefly. Now Moore and Williams will work to build on their chemistry.

True or false? The degree of difficulty of the blowout win over the Panthers must be a big part of the evaluation of the Bears’ performance.

Wiederer: True. No doubt about this one whatsoever.

We were commenting in the press box about how unimpressive the Panthers were. And then they went from bad to worse and injured with players dropping left and right during the game.

You heard me repeat several times last week that while there are no layup wins in the NFL, this one qualified as a lightly contested 10-foot jumper. But to the Bears’ credit, they squared their shoulders, took their time and drained the shot without anxiety. All net. And that counts for something.

The Bears led by 20 points or more for the entire second half and never left the door open even a crack for a Carolina rally. That’s the sign of a focused team that now has the ability to thump significantly inferior opponents without needing to empty the tank.

The Bears certainly owe no apologies for the team that appeared on their schedule and showed up in their home stadium. They can only play the game in front of them. And they did that in impressive fashion across the board.

In the bigger picture, however, there must be an understanding that much greater challenges are ahead. As long as the Bears acknowledge that and don’t grow overly intoxicated with Sunday’s win, they’ll be fine.

‘That’s what it’s supposed to look like.’ No-doubt win is what the Chicago Bears have been working toward.

Kane: I think the Bears can do both things simultaneously. They can look at the injury-plagued opponent they just beat by 26 points and understand they have far more difficult matchups ahead, particularly as they move into division play in November. And they can use the win as a confidence builder — because they did what they were supposed to do against an inferior opponent.

Williams threw for 304 yards, cemented the aforementioned connection with Moore and most importantly looked like he is learning, improving and adding new elements to his game each week. For the second week in a row, the running game found success, with 128 yards and three touchdowns. And the defense continues to get huge plays from all over, adding three more takeaways to its season total of 11, which ranks third in the NFL.

Those things are nothing to sniff at, even if they came against the lowly Panthers.

I’ve said this before, but the team’s leadership consists of some very grounded players, including veterans who know what it takes to win week in and week out. They’ll be needed to make sure the team doesn’t get overly confident. And this feels like another win the Bears can build on against the Jaguars — as long as they don’t get thrown off by the disruption of the week in London.

True or false? The Bears took the right approach by arriving in London on Tuesday.

Kane: True. At least it seems like the right approach to have the team fly out Monday night, arrive Tuesday morning and have a few days to acclimate to the time difference.

The Athletic did a study on this and reported that in 36 games in London, the teams arrived on the same day 17 times. For the other 19 games, the team that arrived earlier won 12 times.

Now, the Jaguars are pros at the London trip, having played 11 games there since 2013, and they’re arriving Friday for their two-game stint. They did the same last year and won both games.

So maybe they know better. But it seems to me it can’t hurt to have the team get settled in there, even if it does present more opportunities for distractions in a different country.

Why the Chicago Bears chose to spend all week in London preparing for Sunday’s game: ‘Just to get our clocks right’

Wiederer: The downside to leaving so early is the disruption of the usual game-week routine, which some teams subscribe to with great dedication. But I think the Bears can manage their London schedule in a way that keeps them locked in on their preparation for Sunday’s game while allowing for time to adjust their body clocks.

In 2019, when we headed to London late in the week for Bears-Raiders, I vividly recall how wrecked I was by the jet lag and wondered how Bears players would respond in the heat of a high-intensity NFL game. As it turns out, they didn’t respond so well. In a lethargic first-half performance, they had only 44 yards and two first downs and fell behind 17-0.

They rallied to take the lead with a 21-point explosion in the third quarter but ultimately lost 24-21, bringing a flood of questions about their travel strategy.

We’ll see how Matt Eberflus’ group does with this week’s itinerary. But it sure feels like the leave-early approach has more pros than cons.

True or false? The NFLPA’s desire to push media interviews with players out of team locker rooms is understandable.

Wiederer: True. On the surface, I get it. There always has been a bit of an awkward dynamic in holding conversations within a space where players get dressed and undressed. And it can be particularly uncomfortable with the massive scrums that occur for high-profile players in a market as big as ours.

I believe there’s an opening here for the players union and the Pro Football Writers of America to engage in a productive conversation about feasible alternatives, particularly if both sides are genuinely solution-oriented and not dug in with a combative posture.

The issue, though, is less about the forum of availability for player interviews than it is about the availability itself. And if the NFLPA and its members are aggressively trying to use this moment to dodge their contractual responsibilities to speak with reporters, then we have a much different discussion. The biggest concern, from a media perspective, is that too many players are simply looking for a way out of having to talk regularly with reporters. And that part, I don’t really get.

I’ve said it a thousand times during my time covering the NFL and high-level college hoops before that. I don’t need to be inside a team locker room just to say that I’m inside the locker room. But I would like for reporters to have the opportunity to do their jobs properly and responsibly. That means having the access to players that has been agreed upon, which offers the chance to build relationships and connect with a team in ways that provide informed insight and perspective to tell the stories we’re trying to tell.

I’m sure there’s a solution that can work for both sides. They just need to be engaged in this conversation in good faith.

4 things we learned from the NFLPA boss, including a potential 18-game season and London conditions awaiting the Chicago Bears

Kane: I’m with you. For players, having reporters — some with cameras — in a place where they dress is undoubtedly uncomfortable, though most reporters are respectful of athletes by not approaching them while they change.  And it can be uncomfortable for reporters too.

If locker-room access goes away, the question, as you mentioned, is how do we create a forum where reporters still can have casual conversations with players that will help inform their work? How can we ensure we will be able to speak with the players we need in order to write our daily stories?

In a locker-room session done the right way — when players are present at their lockers — a reporter should be able to speak with multiple players. If reporters are moved out of the locker room, it would require the team’s staff to do even more work than it already does to make sure the players who are needed are available, especially with a media corps as large as Chicago’s.

I understand why there can be a disconnect between players and reporters about media access, beyond the awkwardness that comes from reporters questioning players about how they do their jobs. Players have so much they need to focus on each day during a football week. Media access is just a blip in their days between recovery, training, film sessions and practice. Meanwhile, a reporter’s entire plan for the day of work can hinge on whether he or she gets a five-minute interview with a player.

I hope a solution can be agreed upon that respects both groups trying to do their jobs at their places of work. Because, yes, the locker room is the players’ space. But it also — for a very long time — has been the place where reporters do their jobs.