Chuba Hubbard has moved past Miles Sanders on Carolina’s depth chart. Frank Reich has confirmed as much. But I wouldn’t be excited about using Hubbard in tonight’s game.
Had you asked back in August, I would have identified this as the more favorable matchup on Carolina’s schedule, at least in terms of run defense. The Bears allowed a league-high 31 rushing touchdowns last year. And they looked like that group early in the season, allowing 153 rushing yards, with 2 TDs, in a blowout loss against Kansas City, and 120 rushing yards against the Bucs (who don’t run it all that often or well).
But things change, with new players and formational adjustments. Whatever the reasons, the Bears nowadays are playing some of the best run defense in the league. Since that loss to Kansas City, Chicago has allowed the fewest rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in the league – 59 yards per week in its last six, and with no touchdowns.
None of their last six opponents have run for 100 yards (and three haven’t run for even 50).
I don’t think they’re quite as good as the numbers suggest. Stats, after all, are a combination of who you’re playing and who you’re playing. They haven’t faced the Ravens or Eagles. They’ve instead played mostly teams that don’t run it much or run it effectively.
But Chicago looks pretty good against the run, so I don’t see Hubbard coming in and churning out a bunch of yards.
Strictly by the numbers, Chicago has the league’s most improved run defense (relative to early in the season).
The chart below shows the rushing production (att, yds, TD) for each team in its first four games and in its last four. (For teams that haven’t yet had their bye, the Week 5 game is omitted, giving each team two blocks of four games each.) Using standard fantasy scoring (6 points for TDs, 1 for every 10 yards), Chicago has been 68 percent better in its last four games.
| RUSHING DEFENSE, first vs. last four games. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Defense | First 4 G | Last 4 G | Diff |
| Chicago | 122-462-4 | 88-226-0 | 68% |
| Denver | 126-704-7 | 104-529-1 | 48% |
| Green Bay | 139-621-5 | 111-371-2 | 47% |
| Houston | 107-466-7 | 116-310-3 | 45% |
| Miami | 114-494-6 | 102-377-3 | 35% |
| NY Giants | 121-535-7 | 104-387-4 | 34% |
| LA Chargers | 101-417-5 | 92-301-3 | 33% |
| Washington | 108-490-4 | 102-378-2 | 32% |
| Cincinnati | 123-628-3 | 86-410-4 | 20% |
| Buffalo | 75-474-2 | 97-360-2 | 19% |
| New Orleans | 107-404-4 | 112-367-3 | 15% |
| Jacksonville | 96-379-2 | 80-255-3 | 13% |
| Arizona | 119-528-7 | 129-537-5 | 12% |
| Pittsburgh | 126-594-2 | 111-471-3 | 9% |
| Philadelphia | 76-252-2 | 70-291-1 | 6% |
| Minnesota | 127-445-3 | 103-411-3 | 5% |
| Atlanta | 116-458-1 | 111-440-1 | 3% |
| Tampa Bay | 92-379-2 | 103-364-2 | 3% |
| LA Rams | 100-444-5 | 123-502-4 | 0% |
| Carolina | 115-545-6 | 123-509-8 | -9% |
| NY Jets | 141-592-1 | 117-506-4 | -14% |
| Las Vegas | 125-537-4 | 125-601-5 | -16% |
| Indianapolis | 134-507-6 | 126-534-8 | -17% |
| Dallas | 97-447-2 | 121-424-5 | -28% |
| Detroit | 80-243-3 | 84-371-3 | -30% |
| Kansas City | 94-416-1 | 110-524-2 | -35% |
| San Francisco | 68-264-2 | 101-425-2 | -42% |
| Seattle | 110-350-5 | 121-626-5 | -42% |
| Baltimore | 98-370-0 | 80-370-3 | -49% |
| New England | 100-413-1 | 113-553-3 | -55% |
| Cleveland | 89-287-2 | 103-431-5 | -80% |
| Tennessee | 97-280-1 | 129-638-4 | -158% |
—Ian Allan