DJ Moore and Jaquan Brisker left Chicago through different routes during the 2026 offseason. Buffalo traded for Moore and a draft pick, sending the Bears a second-round selection. Pittsburgh signed Brisker to a one-year contract. Grouping them together as former Bears is useful; describing both moves as new free-agent signings is not.
The distinction also explains what each destination was buying. The Bills reunited an established receiver with Joe Brady, his former offensive coordinator. The Steelers added an experienced safety who wanted to contribute in multiple defensive roles and was returning to the area where he grew up.
Revised September 14, 2026: This is a transaction-and-role explainer about offseason moves, not an announcement of new September signings. Career and performance figures below are dated to the relevant team reports.
What Buffalo actually sent Chicago for Moore
The Bills’ March 11 announcement set out the finalized exchange: Buffalo received Moore and Chicago’s fifth-round selection, No. 165 overall, while Chicago received Buffalo’s second-round pick, No. 60.
Chicago’s announcement that same day independently confirmed the direction of the exchange. The fifth-round choice went with Moore to Buffalo. It was not the pick Chicago received for him.
That makes a material difference to how the transaction is evaluated. Chicago moved an established offensive player while turning a later draft selection into a substantially earlier one. Buffalo used the higher selection to obtain a receiver whose NFL work was already visible, accepting the opportunity cost of not using that pick on a rookie.
Brady’s familiarity gave Buffalo a starting point
Moore played in Brady’s Carolina offense in 2020 and 2021, exceeding 1,100 receiving yards in both seasons, according to Buffalo’s trade announcement. Their reunion therefore had a concrete football history behind it, not just a general hope that a new environment would help.
The benefit is familiarity with how a receiver can be deployed. Brady had already worked with Moore’s route-running and ability after the catch. Their earlier production does not guarantee the same result with Josh Allen, but it gives the coaching staff a more informed basis for designing the role.
In Buffalo’s spring practice reporting, Allen praised Moore’s movement with the ball and emphasized getting on the same page. Moore focused on establishing himself with his new teammates. Those comments describe the next task after a trade: turning a familiar skill set into timing with a different quarterback.
Moore’s final Bears season needs the full context
The Bears’ February receiver review recorded 50 catches, 682 yards and six touchdowns for Moore in 2025. Rome Odunze had 661 receiving yards and Luther Burden III had 652, giving Chicago three wide receivers above 600 yards.
Moore also caught the winning touchdown against Green Bay in the regular season and again in the wild-card game. His lower yardage total did not make those contributions disappear. General manager Ryan Poles praised the toughness Moore demonstrated by continuing to play through physical setbacks.
For Chicago, replacing him meant more than redistributing targets among younger receivers. The offense also had to replace an experienced option who had delivered on important possessions. FSN’s Bears team-building analysis examines the broader supporting-cast question around Caleb Williams.
Brisker’s move was a free-agent homecoming
The Steelers announced Brisker’s one-year contract on March 16. Their signing report recorded 52 starts in 52 regular-season appearances across his four Chicago seasons, with 342 tackles and four interceptions. In 2025, he had 93 tackles and eight passes defensed.
Pittsburgh’s introductory coverage added the personal connection: Brisker grew up in Wilkinsburg, attended Gateway High School and supported the Steelers as a child. The homecoming gave the move emotional significance, but his defensive experience supplied the roster value.
A one-year deal also creates a different evaluation period from a long-term commitment. Pittsburgh could assess the fit in its own defense while Brisker had an opportunity to establish the range of responsibilities he could handle. That is a football interpretation of the contract length, not a report of promises about a subsequent extension.
The role he wanted was broader than tackling near the line
In a March 17 interview, Brisker discussed playing deep safety, closer to the line and in linebacker-like assignments within packages using six defensive backs. He also identified man coverage as an area he wanted to develop.
Those responsibilities place different demands on a safety. Tackling near the line does not automatically prove the ability to cover a receiver without help, and playing deep requires its own recognition and positioning. Brisker’s stated ambition was to expand the ways he could help rather than be defined by one label.
The two departures consequently left different questions in Chicago. Moore’s absence changed the distribution and experience of the passing options; Brisker’s changed the secondary. Evaluating either move requires following what replaces those contributions, not treating an updated list of names as proof of improvement.
Continue with FSN’s Bills, Steelers and Bears coverage for later developments.
Correction and expansion, September 14, 2026: This article now specifies the finalized Moore trade compensation and distinguishes his trade from Brisker’s free-agent signing. Stale preseason wording and a misleading Steelers-to-player link were removed, and the team assignments now include Chicago, Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Original publication date, URL and featured image retained.