Cole Kmet is fine with shrinking targets if it helps the Chicago Bears win

Chicago Bears tight end Cole Kmet is taking a team-first view of his season. In a recent interview, Kmet framed his priorities around winning rather than chasing numbers, describing a role that has evolved since Ben Johnson took over as Chicago’s head coach.

Kmet’s production dipped in 2025 by several measurable markers. According to the report, he recorded 48 targets, 30 receptions, and 347 receiving yards. Those totals were his lowest since his rookie season in 2020, a statistical slide that would normally invite attention, especially for a player whose value is often tracked through catches.

Instead, Kmet’s explanation centered on opportunity and assignment. As Johnson’s staff has emphasized different ways to run the offense, the tight end has been asked to do more blocking. The report characterizes that shift as a reduction in Kmet’s passing-game usage, which would naturally lead to fewer targets even if the player remains involved in moving the ball.

For Bears fans, the key is how that tradeoff fits into the wider blueprint the coaching staff is building. Tight ends in many modern schemes serve dual purposes: they are both a check in the passing game and a structural piece in the run game, helping create lanes and protect the pocket. If Chicago is asking Kmet to tilt toward the line of scrimmage, it suggests the staff sees him as a stabilizing presence in the physical phase of the offense.

Kmet’s stance is also notable because it addresses a common tension for tight ends. When targets fall, critics often point to playmaking, route depth, and separation. Kmet’s counter is that a tight end can still be essential even without being the most visible option on third downs or in red-zone route packages.

The Bears’ tight end position also matters for roster construction and play design. When one starter becomes more of a blocking-centered piece, coaches often look for balance elsewhere in the passing game, either by featuring other receivers more prominently or by using motion and formations to create mismatches. That context helps explain why Kmet can view “doing less” in targets as “doing more” in the parts of the job that influence run success, protection calls, and overall play-calling flexibility.

What to watch next is how Chicago’s offense uses Kmet week to week. If the Bears can sustain a stronger run game and keep quarterback protection cleaner, a reduction in receiving numbers may become less concerning. If Chicago needs him to reappear as a frequent route target, his willingness to accept the current assignment will be tested again, this time against the game plan’s demands.

Ultimately, Kmet’s message is straightforward. He is not treating a smaller statistical footprint as proof of diminished importance. Instead, he is aligning himself with the role the coaching staff wants, betting that winning outcomes are the best scoreboard for a tight end’s impact.