What Could Have Been: Patrick Mahomes in Chicago

The 2017 NFL Draft will haunt Bears fans forever. Chicago traded up from #3 to #2, giving up third- and fourth-round picks to San Francisco, all to select Mitchell Trubisky — a quarterback with one year of starting experience at North Carolina. Ten picks later, the Kansas City Chiefs grabbed Patrick Mahomes out of Texas Tech.

We all know how that turned out. But why did it turn out that way? Was it purely about talent, or did context play a massive role? At AltDraft, we think it's both — and our 7-factor contextual model tells a fascinating story.

The Kansas City Machine

Let's start with what Mahomes actually walked into. Kansas City's contextual score for a rookie quarterback in 2017 was elite — one of the best landing spots we've ever calculated.

Play Caller (18% weight): A+. Andy Reid. The man who turned Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (yes, that Michael Vick comeback), and Alex Smith into Pro Bowlers. Reid's quarterback-friendly West Coast offense with modern RPO concepts was a perfect incubator. He also had the patience to let Mahomes sit behind Smith for a full season. That alone is worth its weight in gold.

Supporting Cast (17% weight): A. Tyreek Hill was already a game-breaking weapon. Travis Kelce was entering his prime as the best tight end in football. Kareem Hunt would rush for 1,327 yards as a rookie. Mahomes had speed, reliability, and balance around him from day one.

Offensive Line (20% weight): B+. KC's line was solid — not elite, but good enough. They allowed 37 sacks in 2017, middle of the pack. Mitchell Schwartz at right tackle was one of the best in the league. Eric Fisher at left tackle was dependable. Mahomes could extend plays without fearing for his life.

Organizational Culture (15% weight): A. The Chiefs had made the playoffs in three of the last four seasons. The front office, led by Brett Veach (who specifically pushed for Mahomes), was competent and aggressive. This was a franchise that expected to win.

Overall KC Contextual Score: 87/100.

The Chicago Wasteland

Now let's look at what Trubisky — and hypothetically, Mahomes — actually faced in Chicago.

Play Caller (18% weight): D. John Fox. The man was a fine defensive coach, but his offensive philosophy belonged in 2005. Fox was fired after the 2017 season with a 14-34 record in three years. His offensive coordinator? Dowell Loggains, who called one of the most conservative, uninspiring offenses in the NFL. The Bears ranked 32nd (last) in total offense in 2017. This was not a system designed to maximize a gunslinger like Mahomes.

Supporting Cast (17% weight): D-. The Bears' top receivers in 2017 were Kendall Wright (59 catches, 614 yards), Josh Bellamy, and Dontrelle Inman. No, seriously. That was the room. There was no Tyreek Hill. There was no Travis Kelce. Jordan Howard was a solid running back, but he was a plodder — not the kind of back who creates explosive plays. Tarik Cohen added some juice, but he was a rookie fifth-rounder.

Offensive Line (20% weight): C-. Chicago's line allowed 38 sacks in 2017, seventh-worst in the NFL. Left tackle Charles Leno Jr. was league-average on a good day. The interior was a revolving door. For a quarterback like Mahomes, who holds the ball and creates off-script, this would have been a disaster. Even the most mobile QBs need some protection.

Organizational Culture (15% weight): F. The Bears went 5-11 in 2017. The head coach got fired. General manager Ryan Pace was already on thin ice (he'd eventually be fired too). The franchise was in full rebuild mode, but without a clear plan. The culture was losing, and it was toxic.

Overall Chicago Contextual Score: 38/100.

A 49-Point Gap

That's a 49-point difference in contextual score between the two landing spots. Forty-nine points.

Could Mahomes have overcome it? Maybe. He's generationally talented — the arm angles, the improvisation, the football IQ. Those don't change based on zip code. But consider this: even the most talented quarterbacks in NFL history have been shaped by their environment.

Would Mahomes have sat for a year in Chicago? Absolutely not. John Fox was coaching for his job. Trubisky was thrown into the fire by Week 5. Mahomes would have been out there taking hits behind a bad line, throwing to Kendall Wright, running a scheme from the Stone Age.

Would Mahomes have developed the same way? Under Andy Reid, Mahomes learned to read defenses, manipulate safeties, and trust his processing. Reid refined the raw tools into a precision instrument. Under Dowell Loggains? Mahomes would have been chucking 50/50 balls and scrambling for his life. The raw talent might have looked exciting — think a more athletic Jay Cutler — but the refinement? The surgical precision? That's Reid's fingerprint.

Would Mahomes have gotten his weapons? KC continued to build around Mahomes — adding Mecole Hardman, trading for Orlando Brown Jr., re-signing Kelce. Chicago's front office, by contrast, spent the next few years mismanaging the roster around Trubisky. It took until 2018 (with Matt Nagy and Allen Robinson) for the Bears to even look competent on offense.

Our Model's Verdict

According to our contextual scoring model, Mahomes in Chicago projects as a good but not transcendent quarterback — think multiple Pro Bowls, a couple of playoff wins, but not three MVPs and two Super Bowl rings by age 28.

The 49-point contextual gap doesn't erase his talent. But it reshapes it. The no-look passes don't develop when you're running for your life. The audible mastery doesn't emerge under a coach who doesn't trust his quarterback. The deep ball accuracy doesn't sharpen when your best receiver runs a 4.55 forty.

Patrick Mahomes is a generational talent. But the version of Patrick Mahomes we know — the one who might retire as the greatest quarterback ever — that version only exists because Kansas City gave him the context to become it.

And that's exactly why context matters.

— AltDraft Analytics