Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[Magnetic Curses]

yeah, agreed. it's a market inefficiency for sure.

[cubbyvirus00]

The market for running backs is trending towards the deal Forte wants, right or wrong.

 

How do you figure? Nearly every RB who has gotten the 'big contract' really hasn't produced accordingly. The one guy I can think of that even deserved the money was AP and even then he was hurt last year playing for a team in a rebuilding phase.

 

dumb teams have been paying for the RB of late though. The market is set by everybody, not just the SB champions.

 

the bears don't have to pay what the market sets. they can let him walk if they think he's too expensive.

 

they can take advantage of those dumb teams by dumping money into positions that have more true value, and they have, for the most part.

 

Obviously, that's been my stance. The point, however, is that cubbyvirus asked "how do you figure the market is trending toward the deal Forte wants?" The market has trended there.

 

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

[jersey cubs fan]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Yes, but the market isn't just what the smartest teams think a player is worth, it is what the highest bidder thinks he is worth. And as long as there are teams dumb enough to go all in on a RB then every good RB is going to think he deserves to have somebody go all in with him.

[Magnetic Curses]

personally, if i were an NFL GM, i'd always have a veteran like Bush on my team at a lower cost, draft a running back on day 3 every couple of years and have a 3rd-down type guy or snag someone with healthy legs off the scrap heap from time to time.

[cubbyvirus00]

personally, if i were an NFL GM, i'd always have a veteran like Bush on my team at a lower cost, draft a running back on day 3 every couple of years and have a 3rd-down type guy or snag someone with healthy legs off the scrap heap from time to time.

 

Agreed. I'd feel completely fine with letting Forte go and using a late pick on a good route running RB and go the way of Sproles and the Saints RB offense.

[rawaction]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Only a handful? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. We all see that running isn't as important in the NFL today. We all also agree that 2 RB systems are cheaper and just as productive (in most occassions) in the NFL. But I don't think NFL GMs have shown that they agree with us.

 

The following teams will be paying a RB either over 7 Million (going by cap hit) this year or over 20 Million over the next 3-5 years.

 

Minnesota, Tennessee, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Oakland is just short as McFadden's cap hit is like 6.7Mil.

 

Thats 12 of the 32 teams that have significant money tied into just 1 RB. That doesn't even include the teams that have drafted RB in the first round the last few years, that probably are hoping to sign their RBs to long-term contracts if they pan out as expected.

[jersey cubs fan]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Only a handful? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. We all see that running isn't as important in the NFL today. We all also agree that 2 RB systems are cheaper and just as productive (in most occassions) in the NFL. But I don't think NFL GMs have shown that they agree with us.

 

The following teams will be paying a RB either over 7 Million (going by cap hit) this year or over 20 Million over the next 3-5 years.

 

Minnesota, Tennessee, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Oakland is just short as McFadden's cap hit is like 6.7Mil.

 

Thats 12 of the 32 teams that have significant money tied into just 1 RB. That doesn't even include the teams that have drafted RB in the first round the last few years, that probably are hoping to sign their RBs to long-term contracts if they pan out as expected.

 

20m over 5 years is hardly a big number.

 

And you didn't exactly list a who's who of smartly led football teams.

[Magnetic Curses]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Only a handful? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. We all see that running isn't as important in the NFL today. We all also agree that 2 RB systems are cheaper and just as productive (in most occassions) in the NFL. But I don't think NFL GMs have shown that they agree with us.

 

The following teams will be paying a RB either over 7 Million (going by cap hit) this year or over 20 Million over the next 3-5 years.

 

Minnesota, Tennessee, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Oakland is just short as McFadden's cap hit is like 6.7Mil.

 

Thats 12 of the 32 teams that have significant money tied into just 1 RB. That doesn't even include the teams that have drafted RB in the first round the last few years, that probably are hoping to sign their RBs to long-term contracts if they pan out as expected.

 

20m over 5 years is hardly a big number.

 

And you didn't exactly list a who's who of smartly led football teams.

 

minnesota: no quarterback

Tennessee: no quarterback

Seattle: no quarterback

Chicago: they franchised forte, which is different from giving a lot of guaranteed money over several years

Baltimore: franchised Ray Rice

St Louis: giving Steven Jackson a ton of money hasn't gotten them very far. they are about as bad as you can get

Houston: will regret losing winston and williams because they had to give foster big guaranteed money

Carolina: They are terrible and will regret giving him that kind of money

Jacksonville: no quarterback

San Francisco: no quarterback

Atlanta: They aren't actually that bad but can never get over the hump for some reason

Oakland: no quarterback

[rawaction]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Only a handful? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. We all see that running isn't as important in the NFL today. We all also agree that 2 RB systems are cheaper and just as productive (in most occassions) in the NFL. But I don't think NFL GMs have shown that they agree with us.

 

The following teams will be paying a RB either over 7 Million (going by cap hit) this year or over 20 Million over the next 3-5 years.

 

Minnesota, Tennessee, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Oakland is just short as McFadden's cap hit is like 6.7Mil.

 

Thats 12 of the 32 teams that have significant money tied into just 1 RB. That doesn't even include the teams that have drafted RB in the first round the last few years, that probably are hoping to sign their RBs to long-term contracts if they pan out as expected.

 

20m over 5 years is hardly a big number.

 

And you didn't exactly list a who's who of smartly led football teams.

 

That 20Mil isn't over 5 years isn't what it is though. It's 20Mil guaranteed, over 3 years for most of these players. I put 5 years because most of the players in question have signed 5-year contracts, which would put them in the 35-40Mil range.

[rawaction]

My thinking is really that only a handful of teams really care enough about the position to invest big money into it. I'm going to assume that most teams understand that these guys have a short shelf life and that they can find a UFA or a late round pick to fit their system and produce.

 

Only a handful? I think there's a disconnect somewhere. We all see that running isn't as important in the NFL today. We all also agree that 2 RB systems are cheaper and just as productive (in most occassions) in the NFL. But I don't think NFL GMs have shown that they agree with us.

 

The following teams will be paying a RB either over 7 Million (going by cap hit) this year or over 20 Million over the next 3-5 years.

 

Minnesota, Tennessee, Seattle, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Oakland is just short as McFadden's cap hit is like 6.7Mil.

 

Thats 12 of the 32 teams that have significant money tied into just 1 RB. That doesn't even include the teams that have drafted RB in the first round the last few years, that probably are hoping to sign their RBs to long-term contracts if they pan out as expected.

 

20m over 5 years is hardly a big number.

 

And you didn't exactly list a who's who of smartly led football teams.

 

minnesota: no quarterback

Tennessee: no quarterback

Seattle: no quarterback

Chicago: they franchised forte, which is different from giving a lot of guaranteed money over several years

Baltimore: franchised Ray Rice

St Louis: giving Steven Jackson a ton of money hasn't gotten them very far. they are about as bad as you can get

Houston: will regret losing winston and williams because they had to give foster big guaranteed money

Carolina: They are terrible and will regret giving him that kind of money

Jacksonville: no quarterback

San Francisco: no quarterback

Atlanta: They aren't actually that bad but can never get over the hump for some reason

Oakland: no quarterback

 

Agree, these are not the upper echelon organizations for the most part. But Baltimore is going to sign Ray Rice long-term. Not really a question of IF at this point, but WHEN. And I also left out Philly on the list. Not the best run organization, but a perennial playoff contender. In fact, 6 of ESPNs top 12 in power rankings have big money tied into the RB position for 2012 (Ravens, Bears, Niners, Falcons, Eagles, Texans).

 

Spending money on a RB isn't necessarily a terrible thing, IMO. Just like any other position, what is more important is making sure you don't overspend on a player who isn't worth it. You can argue that no RB is worth it, because they are a dime-a-dozen, but clearly there are some that are. Whether Forte is one of them or not, I can't really say. I'm almost positive he'd be worth it in 2012. Think he'll probably be worth it in 2013. But after that it's very iffy.

[Magnetic Curses]

i guess the point is you save on running backs and splurge on qb, wr, and o-line. those are the teams that make it to the super bowl every single year.

 

rex grossman proved that you can make it to the super bowl without being elite at the qb position, but you better have a killer defense that takes the ball away from fools and runs the other way with it and you better have an offensive line that can run block--not to mention 2 running backs that split duties.

 

let's just trade him for some picks.

[rawaction]

i guess the point is you save on running backs and splurge on qb, wr, and o-line. those are the teams that make it to the super bowl every single year.

 

rex grossman proved that you can make it to the super bowl without being elite at the qb position, but you better have a killer defense that takes the ball away from fools and runs the other way with it and you better have an offensive line that can run block--not to mention 2 running backs that split duties.

 

let's just trade him for some picks.

 

I'd love to trade Forte for draft picks, but that ship has sailed. Bears still win. Get an unhappy Forte, but also a Forte that will be playing for his next contract with another team and get 7.5 Million dollars to play with next year.

[cubbyvirus00]

i guess the point is you save on running backs and splurge on qb, wr, and o-line. those are the teams that make it to the super bowl every single year.

 

rex grossman proved that you can make it to the super bowl without being elite at the qb position, but you better have a killer defense that takes the ball away from fools and runs the other way with it and you better have an offensive line that can run block--not to mention 2 running backs that split duties.

 

let's just trade him for some picks.

 

I'd love to trade Forte for draft picks, but that ship has sailed. Bears still win. Get an unhappy Forte, but also a Forte that will be playing for his next contract with another team and get 7.5 Million dollars to play with next year.

 

I'm not well verse on the supplemental pick process, but if he walks we get a pick right?

[Magnetic Curses]

works for me

[Banedon]

Carimi practiced yesterday. Not sure exactly how much. Today's practice is open to the media, so we should know more today.

[rawaction]

i guess the point is you save on running backs and splurge on qb, wr, and o-line. those are the teams that make it to the super bowl every single year.

 

rex grossman proved that you can make it to the super bowl without being elite at the qb position, but you better have a killer defense that takes the ball away from fools and runs the other way with it and you better have an offensive line that can run block--not to mention 2 running backs that split duties.

 

let's just trade him for some picks.

 

I'd love to trade Forte for draft picks, but that ship has sailed. Bears still win. Get an unhappy Forte, but also a Forte that will be playing for his next contract with another team and get 7.5 Million dollars to play with next year.

 

I'm not well verse on the supplemental pick process, but if he walks we get a pick right?

 

Depends. If he signs with another team and the Bears don't sign someone of his caliber, they'll get a compensation pick. So, basically the Bears can't lose Forte and spend that money on a top FA CB or something, that would just cancel out their comp pick. Comp picks are based on salary, playing time, and performance of players lost in free agency vs. players gained. So, if the Bears somehow get 2 probowl players in FA for the same thing Forte signs for, they won't get anything (assuming they don't lose or gain anyone else). Because that is extremely unlikely, the Bears could potentially get a 3rd round comp pick if Forte leaves, as he would likely be one of the top FAs to change teams. Oakland basically got a 3rd for Asomugha and a 4th for Gallery, even though neither played all that well last year.

[Old Style]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

[rawaction]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

 

Not really. 5 of the top 8 rushers in the league made the playoffs, and all but 1 of their teams won at least 1 playoff game. The previous season 7 of the 12 playoff teams had a 1000 yard rusher.

[Guest]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

 

Not really. 5 of the top 8 rushers in the league made the playoffs, and all but 1 of their teams won at least 1 playoff game. The previous season 7 of the 12 playoff teams had a 1000 yard rusher.

 

Maybe, but that's still just yardage totals. And lots of times good teams will have high running totals because they're playing with leads. How does it look if you go by Y/C?

[Magnetic Curses]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

 

Not really. 5 of the top 8 rushers in the league made the playoffs, and all but 1 of their teams won at least 1 playoff game. The previous season 7 of the 12 playoff teams had a 1000 yard rusher.

 

yes, and the 10 other 1,000-yard rushers didn't make the playoffs.

 

i'm not concerned with making the playoffs, lots of mediocre teams make the playoffs. the teams that get deep into the postseason have quarterbacks that make huge plays when the games are on the line, which is what pushes those teams over the edge. the running backs are inconsequential.

 

i'm not saying that good teams don't or can't have good running backs, but the fact that most years 1,000 yard rushers are not in the super bowl tells me that good teams that consistently make deep runs in the playoffs generally have a running back-by-committee set up because they don't spend big at the position.

[rawaction]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

 

Not really. 5 of the top 8 rushers in the league made the playoffs, and all but 1 of their teams won at least 1 playoff game. The previous season 7 of the 12 playoff teams had a 1000 yard rusher.

 

Maybe, but that's still just yardage totals. And lots of times good teams will have high running totals because they're playing with leads. How does it look if you go by Y/C?

 

Not sure what you're going for here, but the top 4 teams in YPC all missed the playoffs. But going by YPC puts NO in the conversation, as they tied for 4th best YPC. Pittsburgh (also with no 1000 yard rusher) gets in the top 10 and Detroit is 12th. 6 of the top 12 in YPC made the playoffs (3 teams were tied for 12th, so 6 of 14 if you wish).

 

Only 4 of the bottom 12 in rushing YPC made the playoffs (GB, NYG, NE, and ATL).

[jersey cubs fan]

 

i'm not concerned with making the playoffs, lots of mediocre teams make the playoffs.

 

While I agree with your general point, I wouldn't say lot of mediocre teams make the playoffs, a couple per year, probably. It's usually because of a crap division that gets their winner in by default. Most playoff teams are pretty good. But if you want to be really good for a considerable amount of time, the way to do it is by solidifying your QB/passing game, not by paying one RB.

[Magnetic Curses]

i don't know why you continue to insist upon the importance of running backs, they're obviously mostly interchangeable. spending big on them when you have weaknesses in other areas is suicide. teams that because they have a good running back that they have some superstar that can lift a mediocre team to greatness. that's just not true.

 

the only position that can do that is quarterback, surround the quarterback with a line and with receivers and you can do whatever you want at running back.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

i'm not concerned with making the playoffs, lots of mediocre teams make the playoffs.

 

While I agree with your general point, I wouldn't say lot of mediocre teams make the playoffs, a couple per year, probably. It's usually because of a crap division that gets their winner in by default. Most playoff teams are pretty good. But if you want to be really good for a considerable amount of time, the way to do it is by solidifying your QB/passing game, not by paying one RB.

 

that's pretty much what i'm getting at.

[rawaction]

of the last 10 tailbacks to start the super bowl, 2 have rushed for 1,000 yards in the corresponding season. they are all pretty much expendable.

That is an excellent stat.

 

Not really. 5 of the top 8 rushers in the league made the playoffs, and all but 1 of their teams won at least 1 playoff game. The previous season 7 of the 12 playoff teams had a 1000 yard rusher.

 

yes, and the 10 other 1,000-yard rushers didn't make the playoffs.

 

i'm not concerned with making the playoffs, lots of mediocre teams make the playoffs. the teams that get deep into the postseason have quarterbacks that make huge plays when the games are on the line, which is what pushes those teams over the edge. the running backs are inconsequential.

 

i'm not saying that good teams don't or can't have good running backs, but the fact that most years 1,000 yard rushers are not in the super bowl tells me that good teams that consistently make deep runs in the playoffs generally have a running back-by-committee set up because they don't spend big at the position.

 

Lots of mediocre teams make the playoffs? Well what about the Superbowl? 3 of the last 4 superbowls have had a 9-win team in it. The last 2 winners have won every game on the road to get there. NFL playoffs are slowly becoming like the MLB where the hot team wins, not the team that has been best all season.

 

I'm not trying to argue that good teams can't and don't have good RBs. My point is, that the thought that all RBs are expendable is on the same shaky ground as the thought that you need a stud RB.