Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[rawaction]

but let's just assume you're right and forte is better in a vacuum, but his dyar and dvoa numbers aren't near sproles or thomas and slightly trail ingram. what does that say about the importance and expendability of running backs?

 

Nobody has disputed that RBs aren't expendable. All I did was point out that the reasoning YOU provided (last 10 SB teams only 2 100 yard rushers) and the reasoning Goony provided (don't spend too much at RB at the expense of the passing game) were flawed reasons.

 

RBs aren't expendable because something magically happens when they hit 1000 yards and their teams can't win. RBs also technically aren't expendable because of the money they make when they get good. RBs are expendable, because running the ball is one of the easiest things to do on a football field and is the almost 100% dependent on every other position on the field.

[Magnetic Curses]

Nobody has disputed that RBs aren't expendable. All I did was point out that the reasoning YOU provided (last 10 SB teams only 2 100 yard rushers) and the reasoning Goony provided (don't spend too much at RB at the expense of the passing game) were flawed reasons.

 

those weren't our arguments, those were aspects of our arguments. me pointing out that there have been only 2 1,000 yard rushers to start in the last 5 super bowls shows that the better teams are consistently relying on running backs by committee and staying away from paying or using one back they will eventually have to pay if they haven't already. i never once implied that something happens to running backs at 1,000 yards that makes their teams less likely to win in the playoffs, that's a really strange interpretation of what i said.

 

as for Goony's point, if you spend a lot of money on one player, you have less to spend on others. if that player is at a replaceable position, the money you spend on them inhibits you from either a. diversifying the position and protecting yourzxelf from injury or b. inhibits you from spending that money on other, more important positions. that is undeniable.

 

RBs aren't expendable because something magically happens when they hit 1000 yards and their teams can't win. RBs also technically aren't expendable because of the money they make when they get good. RBs are expendable, because running the ball is one of the easiest things to do on a football field and is the almost 100% dependent on every other position on the field.

 

you need to go back and re-read the whole discussion if that's what you took out of it. we have been saying the second thing all along.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe now is a good time to point out that Jay Cutler is in line for a huge extension within the next year that will probably pay him $4-5m more per year than what his current deal is paying him.

[rawaction]

Nobody has disputed that RBs aren't expendable. All I did was point out that the reasoning YOU provided (last 10 SB teams only 2 100 yard rushers) and the reasoning Goony provided (don't spend too much at RB at the expense of the passing game) were flawed reasons.

 

those weren't our arguments, those were aspects of our arguments. me pointing out that there have been only 2 1,000 yard rushers to start in the last 5 super bowls shows that the better teams are consistently relying on running backs by committee and staying away from paying or using one back they will eventually have to pay if they haven't already. i never once implied that something happens to running backs at 1,000 yards that makes their teams less likely to win in the playoffs, that's a really strange interpretation of what i said.

 

as for Goony's point, if you spend a lot of money on one player, you have less to spend on others. if that player is at a replaceable position, the money you spend on them inhibits you from either a. diversifying the position and protecting yourzxelf from injury or b. inhibits you from spending that money on other, more important positions. that is undeniable.

 

RBs aren't expendable because something magically happens when they hit 1000 yards and their teams can't win. RBs also technically aren't expendable because of the money they make when they get good. RBs are expendable, because running the ball is one of the easiest things to do on a football field and is the almost 100% dependent on every other position on the field.

 

you need to go back and re-read the whole discussion if that's what you took out of it. we have been saying the second thing all along.

 

You really aren't good at interpreting hyperbole are you? Obviously, I know you don't think something happens magically at 1000 yards. And I disputed your point that pointed out that several playoff teams (and perennial playoff teams at that) do have 1000 yard rushers. Just because the teams that get to the SB don't have them is a coincedence that doesn't mean a GD thing.

 

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

A) sure the position is not diversified with Bell being similar to Forte. But nothing was stopping the Bears from drafting a scat/speed back and picking up a cheap short yardage RB, giving them the same versatility for basically the same price as the Saints paid their RBs.

 

B) The Saints 3 RBs and the Bears 3 RBs (Forte's high salary and 2 cheap salaries) would be about the same. Both teams have about the same amount of money to fill the other 51 positions on the roster. Both teams are similarly inhibited by the cap based on the RB position.

 

So in short, my point is those ASPECTS of both of your arguments were weak.

[scarey]

They're pieces in a system where the all world pass attack sets up the run to be productive on a per carry basis.

 

which again, if true, proves my point.

 

but it's also weird logic to say that guys who put up better numbers are not as good as a guy who puts up worse numbers. take away the numbers and all you have is opinion.

 

but let's just assume you're right and forte is better in a vacuum, but his dyar and dvoa numbers aren't near sproles or thomas and slightly trail ingram. what does that say about the importance and expendability of running backs?

 

I don't want to add anything other to this conversation outside of this: trying to determine the value of runningbacks by comparing DYAR and DVOA of those runningbacks on different teams in different systems is flawed analysis.

[jersey cubs fan]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

[Banedon]

Hahaha...Kordell Stewart called a press conference in Pittsburgh to announce his retirement.....

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/steelers/seven-years-later-slash-signs-off-as-a-steeler-638178/

 

Thanks for clearing up your status there, Kordell.

[Magnetic Curses]

They're pieces in a system where the all world pass attack sets up the run to be productive on a per carry basis.

 

which again, if true, proves my point.

 

but it's also weird logic to say that guys who put up better numbers are not as good as a guy who puts up worse numbers. take away the numbers and all you have is opinion.

 

but let's just assume you're right and forte is better in a vacuum, but his dyar and dvoa numbers aren't near sproles or thomas and slightly trail ingram. what does that say about the importance and expendability of running backs?

 

I don't want to add anything other to this conversation outside of this: trying to determine the value of runningbacks by comparing DYAR and DVOA of those runningbacks on different teams in different systems is flawed analysis.

 

but forte is like 32nd in the league in both areas, so his value doesn't really compare to anyone's in any system.

[davell]

Forte's pretty damn good. Forte's possibly an injury risk moving forward. RB's are valued less and less every year. This sucks for Forte. If we have a good enough passing game, we can get enough production out of Bush/Bell to where losing Forte isn't all that detrimental. Let him walk after this season, hopefully pocket a 3rd or 4th rounder out of it and spend his money towards Cutler's extension and another RB that helps us out in whatever way Bush and Bell don't.

[rawaction]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

 

I've said several times I'm 50/50 on Forte getting a new contract. I think the difference here is that I think Forte will be good enough for long enough to justify the extension for the most part. He is capable of being worthless in 1-2 years, but if you guarantee him $20Mil and give him a 5-year contract, you can cut him loose after 3 years and he won't hurt anything, because all the guaranteed money is paid at that point. You think he's only going to give 1-2 good years, I think he's capable of 2-3.

[Magnetic Curses]

You really aren't good at interpreting hyperbole are you? Obviously, I know you don't think something happens magically at 1000 yards. And I disputed your point that pointed out that several playoff teams (and perennial playoff teams at that) do have 1000 yard rushers. Just because the teams that get to the SB don't have them is a coincedence that doesn't mean a GD thing.

 

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence.

[scarey]

They're pieces in a system where the all world pass attack sets up the run to be productive on a per carry basis.

 

which again, if true, proves my point.

 

but it's also weird logic to say that guys who put up better numbers are not as good as a guy who puts up worse numbers. take away the numbers and all you have is opinion.

 

but let's just assume you're right and forte is better in a vacuum, but his dyar and dvoa numbers aren't near sproles or thomas and slightly trail ingram. what does that say about the importance and expendability of running backs?

 

I don't want to add anything other to this conversation outside of this: trying to determine the value of runningbacks by comparing DYAR and DVOA of those runningbacks on different teams in different systems is flawed analysis.

 

but forte is like 32nd in the league in both areas, so his value doesn't really compare to anyone's in any system.

 

I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. I think you know why it's flawed and you're just using it for the benefit for your argument. Even if you didn't understand and I did enlighten you, you wouldn't acknowledge it. So, I'm not going to waste my time. If you want to continue acting ignorant, I won't make any more attempts to stop you.

[Magnetic Curses]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

 

I've said several times I'm 50/50 on Forte getting a new contract. I think the difference here is that I think Forte will be good enough for long enough to justify the extension for the most part. He is capable of being worthless in 1-2 years, but if you guarantee him $20Mil and give him a 5-year contract, you can cut him loose after 3 years and he won't hurt anything, because all the guaranteed money is paid at that point. You think he's only going to give 1-2 good years, I think he's capable of 2-3.

 

you keep saying things like bell isn't a big dropoff in production to forte, so why pay forte 20 million when you get that production or close to it for peanuts?

[rawaction]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

 

Also, if the RB position is so expendable....why aren't 2 UDFAs (or Bell and UDFA) not capable of contributing? If you have a roster of 3 RBs, you have 3 players capable of contributing. Whether you're paying 2.5Mil to all 3 or 8Mil to 1 and minimum wage to the other 2, it's still the same. Sure it sucks if that 8Mil player gets hurt and doesn't live up to his contract, but you got capable players either way.

 

If it's so expendable of a position, why spend 7Mil at all? Why not spend 2-3Mil total? Draft one high every 4 years, let him walk when he's a FA and then pick up UDFAs as necessary. I take from your comments that the Saints are being smart but the Bears are not (if they re-sign Forte), when they'll still have the same money tied up into the RB position regardless, and both will have financial constraints on every other positions, both have high paid QBs, both have aging stars getting paid on D, both will suffer if someone gets injured.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. I think you know why it's flawed and you're just using it for the benefit for your argument. Even if you didn't understand and I did enlighten you, you wouldn't acknowledge it. So, I'm not going to waste my time. If you want to continue acting ignorant, I won't make any more attempts to stop you.

 

you're smart, we get it.

[rawaction]

You really aren't good at interpreting hyperbole are you? Obviously, I know you don't think something happens magically at 1000 yards. And I disputed your point that pointed out that several playoff teams (and perennial playoff teams at that) do have 1000 yard rushers. Just because the teams that get to the SB don't have them is a coincedence that doesn't mean a GD thing.

 

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence.

 

Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top?

 

It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries.

[Magnetic Curses]

Also, if the RB position is so expendable....why aren't 2 UDFAs (or Bell and UDFA) not capable of contributing? If you have a roster of 3 RBs, you have 3 players capable of contributing. Whether you're paying 2.5Mil to all 3 or 8Mil to 1 and minimum wage to the other 2, it's still the same. Sure it sucks if that 8Mil player gets hurt and doesn't live up to his contract, but you got capable players either way.

 

i'm sure that they like each guy individually and appreciate the dynamic each brings to the team. sproles, in particular, is a special veteran player that they want to keep in the fold. they like thomas, who has been with them for a long time and is most likely a steady presence in the locker room, and they must like ingram's role as a goal-line guy. i personally wouldn't have chosen ingram so high as he doesn't seem like a special player, but whatever. they feel that those guys combined are worth the money that it takes to retain their services individually.

 

If it's so expendable of a position, why spend 7Mil at all? Why not spend 2-3Mil total? Draft one high every 4 years, let him walk when he's a FA and then pick up UDFAs as necessary. I take from your comments that the Saints are being smart but the Bears are not (if they re-sign Forte), when they'll still have the same money tied up into the RB position regardless, and both will have financial constraints on every other positions, both have high paid QBs, both have aging stars getting paid on D, both will suffer if someone gets injured.

 

you keep going back and forth between "i think RBs are expendable" to "if you think RBs are so expendable......?" it's confusing, your position isn't clear at all on this.

 

i have personally given my formula on what i would do if i were a GM, so my position is quite clear.

[Magnetic Curses]

You really aren't good at interpreting hyperbole are you? Obviously, I know you don't think something happens magically at 1000 yards. And I disputed your point that pointed out that several playoff teams (and perennial playoff teams at that) do have 1000 yard rushers. Just because the teams that get to the SB don't have them is a coincedence that doesn't mean a GD thing.

 

teams that have a franchise QB and employ a running back by committee, having more than one back that shoulders a majority of the carries, fare better in the playoffs. i really don't know how to say it any plainer terms that you will acknowledge. there is no coincidence.

 

Denver won a playoff game. Houston won a playoff game. Baltimore was a dropped Lee Evans pass and a missed chip shot FG away from being in the SB. The Niners were a couple of fumbled punts away from the SB. Yet, it's the RB by committee (along with QB) that put the Giants and Pats over the top?

 

It's 100% the QB and only the QB which is why the last 5 teams have made it to the SB. Doesn't matter whether they have 1 RB or 4 that get carries.

 

it's funny because you refuse to acknowledge that i have repeatedly said "consistently", you just ignore what doesn't fit your argument.

 

new england has maintained consistent excellence in reaching the super bowl, the giants have won 2, the saints, the colts, the steelers have all won super bowls and gone CONSISTENTLY deep into the post season with a running back by committee. those teams are the standards of excellence.

 

i don't care what teams have won a game in one year or another.

[jersey cubs fan]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

 

I've said several times I'm 50/50 on Forte getting a new contract. I think the difference here is that I think Forte will be good enough for long enough to justify the extension for the most part. He is capable of being worthless in 1-2 years, but if you guarantee him $20Mil and give him a 5-year contract, you can cut him loose after 3 years and he won't hurt anything, because all the guaranteed money is paid at that point. You think he's only going to give 1-2 good years, I think he's capable of 2-3.

 

I'm 100% on him getting a new contract. I'm just pointing out how stupid the "pay the man" people are and how dumb it is to pay top dollar for a RB. Pay him a non-top dollar deal and it'll be great. Then cut him the day Cutler's deal hits the books.

[jersey cubs fan]

As for Goony's point, my counterpoint was if you spend 7-8Mil on Forte, then his backups could be league minimum or slightly above (assuming Forte was locked up and the Bears wouldn't have signed Bush which was done for fear that Forte wouldn't be in camp). I pointed out the Saints because they spent over 7Mil on 3 RBs. Sure it's not all on 1 player, but it's basically the same amount of money on the same position.

 

No it is not basically the same. It is 3 players all capable of contributing to the team, and not one guy who is very easily capable of being worthless within a year or two and huge salary cap and real dollar waste. 7m on 3 guys who can all do good things is smart, >8m on one RB is not smart. It has not been smart for quite a long time.

 

Also, if the RB position is so expendable....why aren't 2 UDFAs (or Bell and UDFA) not capable of contributing? If you have a roster of 3 RBs, you have 3 players capable of contributing. Whether you're paying 2.5Mil to all 3 or 8Mil to 1 and minimum wage to the other 2, it's still the same. Sure it sucks if that 8Mil player gets hurt and doesn't live up to his contract, but you got capable players either way.

 

If it's so expendable of a position, why spend 7Mil at all? Why not spend 2-3Mil total? Draft one high every 4 years, let him walk when he's a FA and then pick up UDFAs as necessary. I take from your comments that the Saints are being smart but the Bears are not (if they re-sign Forte), when they'll still have the same money tied up into the RB position regardless, and both will have financial constraints on every other positions, both have high paid QBs, both have aging stars getting paid on D, both will suffer if someone gets injured.

 

jesus man, your line of reasoning on this topic is going nowhere

[Magnetic Curses]

super bowl winning running backs

 

Bradshaw - 659 yards on 171 carries

Jackson - 703 yards on 190 carries

Thomas - 793 yards on 147 carries

Parker - 791 yards on 210 carries

Jacobs - 1009 yards on 202 carries

Parker - 1202 yards on 255 carries

Dillon - 1635 yards on 345 carries

 

to me this shows a trend.

[CubColtPacer]

super bowl winning running backs

 

Bradshaw - 659 yards on 171 carries

Jackson - 703 yards on 190 carries

Thomas - 793 yards on 147 carries

Parker - 791 yards on 210 carries

Jacobs - 1009 yards on 202 carries

Parker - 1202 yards on 255 carries

Dillon - 1635 yards on 345 carries

 

to me this shows a trend.

 

I love the skip you had in there. Refusing to acknowledge one of those years, but not being blatant about it. That's well done :-)

[minnesotacubsfan]

It shows a very recent trend.

[rawaction]

super bowl winning running backs

 

Bradshaw - 659 yards on 171 carries

Jackson - 703 yards on 190 carries

Thomas - 793 yards on 147 carries

Parker - 791 yards on 210 carries

Jacobs - 1009 yards on 202 carries

Parker - 1202 yards on 255 carries

Dillon - 1635 yards on 345 carries

 

to me this shows a trend.

 

The trend isn't that RB by committee wins SuperBowls. The trend is good QBs win Superbowls. And the general trend in the NFL is running the ball is less important to scoring points than it was in the past.

 

It's stupid to think having 1 guy run vs. 3 guys running makes any bit of difference.

[Magnetic Curses]

super bowl winning running backs

 

Bradshaw - 659 yards on 171 carries

Jackson - 703 yards on 190 carries

Thomas - 793 yards on 147 carries

Addai - 1081 yards on 226 carries

Parker - 791 yards on 210 carries

Jacobs - 1009 yards on 202 carries

Parker - 1202 yards on 255 carries

Dillon - 1635 yards on 345 carries

 

to me this shows a trend.

 

I love the skip you had in there. Refusing to acknowledge one of those years, but not being blatant about it. That's well done :-)

 

shut up, that year never happened. or, at least the sb never happened.

 

ok, fixed. :P