Bears can laugh as Packers are called out for one of NFL's worst offseason moves

You love to see it.
Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers
Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers / Stacy Revere/GettyImages

The Chicago Bears have had one of the most memorable offseasons in team history. Meanwhile, a division rival is hoping their offseason is enough to build on a playoff berth (and win) a season ago.

The Green Bay Packers have seen some changes over the last few months, and one of the more notable moves came when the team essentially swapped Aaron Jones for Josh Jacobs, choosing to pay the latter on a 4-year, $48 million deal.

Christopher Knox, of Bleacher Report, recently wrote up what he saw as the 10 worst offseason moves made across the league. In it, he talked about the Packers' addition of Jacobs.

To start with, Knox did mention the Packers not being on the hook for too much guaranteed money.

Wrote Knox:

"The good news for Green Bay is that only $12.5 million of Jacobs' contract is guaranteed, meaning it isn't a massive risk. The bad news is shortly after adding Jacobs, the Packers decided to part with running back and locker room leader Aaron Jones."

The Packers' signing of Josh Jacobs came with similar risks had they kept Aaron Jones

He went on to describe why Jacobs isn't necessarily a better option than Jones, nor should the Packers be ready to count on him for the entirety of the 2024 season.

"Jacobs dealt with his own injuries last season, missing the final four games with a hamstring injury. The 26-year-old also struggled in 2023 after leading the league in rushing yards, scrimmage yards and touches the previous season.

Last year, Jacobs averaged just 3.5 yards per carry. He isn't a clear upgrade over a healthy Jones, and after being heavily overworked over the past two years (663 touches), there's no guarantee that Jacobs will regain the Pro Bowl form he showed in 2022."

Would it shock you to learn that Jacobs has 128 more career carries than Jones, but is three years younger?

Let's get this straight. The Packers were fine letting go of a guy who has been a fan favorite, knows the offense well and is more of a dual-threat. Yet, they signed a guy who was equally as injury-prone and has less tread on his tires?

That sounds like a move Bears fans can celebrate, and Knox is right on the money with his take. Green Bay should have found a way to keep Jones around. Now, they have to see him twice a year in a Vikings uniform. Don't think Jones isn't going to go for the jugular in both of those contests. It's happening.

The Bears, meanwhile, get to watch the drama from afar as the Packers may have dug themselves a hole that could have been avoided.