Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[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.

 

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.

 

The word consistently isn't in any of your posts until now.

[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.

 

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.

 

again, you are refusing to acknowledge that i've said a franchise qb + running back by committe seems to be the best formula for winning a super bowl, not one or the other.

 

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

 

i think it's stupid to think it doesn't. and goony is about to hammer you hard on this one, so i'll let him.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't even know what the hell raw is talking about at this point. He seems to really want Forte back but then indicates he could go either way. He seems to think RBs are replacable but at the same time vital cogs. I don't really understand where he's coming from.

[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.

 

The word consistently isn't in any of your posts until now.

 

you replied to a post of mine with that word in it.

 

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]

I don't even know what the hell raw is talking about at this point. He seems to really want Forte back but then indicates he could go either way. He seems to think RBs are replacable but at the same time vital cogs. I don't really understand where he's coming from.

 

Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't even know what the hell raw is talking about at this point. He seems to really want Forte back but then indicates he could go either way. He seems to think RBs are replacable but at the same time vital cogs. I don't really understand where he's coming from.

 

Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying.

 

No, I'm saying I don't know. Your argument is all over the place. I have no idea what you are trying to argue for or against. You've picked on this New Orleans paying 3 guys $7m thing that I don't think supports anything else you've tried to argue, but I really have no idea.

[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.

 

which is about the same thing as saying consistently. i knew you weren't reading.

[rawaction]

I don't even know what the hell raw is talking about at this point. He seems to really want Forte back but then indicates he could go either way. He seems to think RBs are replacable but at the same time vital cogs. I don't really understand where he's coming from.

 

Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying.

 

No, I'm saying I don't know. Your argument is all over the place. I have no idea what you are trying to argue for or against. You've picked on this New Orleans paying 3 guys $7m thing that I don't think supports anything else you've tried to argue, but I really have no idea.

 

That was ONLY specifically in reference to your point that you don't allocate significant money to the RB position. I pointed out a team (the best passing team in the history of the NFL, FWIW) that DID allocate a lot of money to the RB position and DID NOT suffer in the passing game as you stated would happen.

[Soul]

In his defense, keeping up on this argument isn't exactly high on my priority list, either.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Running back by committee is what happens when you dont draft a stud RB, let's not kid ourselves. Using it as a strategy is a reaction to 1 or 2 teams success, and their success is predicated on their ability to draft talent at other positions (QB, WR, etc). Hell, you could even say WR by committee is the way to go when you look at teams like NYG or NO.

 

What you need more then anything in the NFL is a stud QB, decent line, and intelligent OC. Beyond that, it doesn't matter where you spend the benjamins, including overspending (or perceivably overspending) on a RB

[jersey cubs fan]

That was ONLY specifically in reference to your point that you don't allocate significant money to the RB position. I pointed out a team (the best passing team in the history of the NFL, FWIW) that DID allocate a lot of money to the RB position and DID NOT suffer in the passing game as you stated would happen.

 

But $7m isn't a lot.

 

 

That's the point raw. $7m for 3 guys is not a lot, so it doesn't defend your stance at all.

[rawaction]

I'm just trying to make the point that if you don't want Forte back because you think his knee might explode before he's paid all his guaranteed money, fine.

 

But I don't think the fact that he's a 1000 yard rusher and 1000 yard rushers haven't won a SB in 5 years or the idea that he's going to keep the Bears from improving the rest of the team with a big contract are legitimate reasons to not want him back (though this argument is clearly better than the first).

[rawaction]

Running back by committee is what happens when you dont draft a stud RB, let's not kid ourselves. Using it as a strategy is a reaction to 1 or 2 teams success, and their success is predicated on their ability to draft talent at other positions (QB, WR, etc). Hell, you could even say WR by committee is the way to go when you look at teams like NYG or NO.

 

What you need more then anything in the NFL is a stud QB, decent line, and intelligent OC. Beyond that, it doesn't matter where you spend the benjamins, including overspending (or perceivably overspending) on a RB

 

The last 3 SB winners have had below average OLs. The Steelers and Giants lines were particularly bad, bottom 1/5 of the league bad.

[Magnetic Curses]

In his defense, keeping up on this argument isn't exactly high on my priority list, either.

 

well that's a relief

[minnesotacubsfan]

Running back by committee is what happens when you dont draft a stud RB, let's not kid ourselves. Using it as a strategy is a reaction to 1 or 2 teams success, and their success is predicated on their ability to draft talent at other positions (QB, WR, etc). Hell, you could even say WR by committee is the way to go when you look at teams like NYG or NO.

 

What you need more then anything in the NFL is a stud QB, decent line, and intelligent OC. Beyond that, it doesn't matter where you spend the benjamins, including overspending (or perceivably overspending) on a RB

 

The last 3 SB winners have had below average OLs. The Steelers and Giants lines were particularly bad, bottom 1/5 of the league bad.

I was mostly talking about offense. Those teams won because of defense as much as offense, even GB had a pretty good defensive year when the won.

 

But ok, replace "decent line" with "otherworldly defense".

[jersey cubs fan]

or the idea that he's going to keep the Bears from improving the rest of the team with a big contract are legitimate reasons to not want him back (though this argument is clearly better than the first).

 

Why? That's perfectly legit. The whole [expletive] point about overpaying RBs is that teams inevitably regret it and it causes problems with the salary cap, because the salary cap forces you to make smart decisions with players. And the last decade or so has shown it's not smart to tie up a heck of a lot of money in RBs. It's much more important to solidify your passing game.

 

I guess this is where I'm getting confused. You acknowledge the trouble with committing too much to a RB but the immediately turnaround and try to negate the primary reason why it is troublesome to commit too much to a RB.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'm just trying to make the point that if you don't want Forte back because you think his knee might explode before he's paid all his guaranteed money, fine.

 

But I don't think the fact that he's a 1000 yard rusher and 1000 yard rushers haven't won a SB in 5 years or the idea that he's going to keep the Bears from improving the rest of the team with a big contract are legitimate reasons to not want him back (though this argument is clearly better than the first).

 

to clear things up, i don't think there's a curse on 1,000 yard rushers making the super bowl. signing one to a huge contract, however, is a curse.

[rawaction]

or the idea that he's going to keep the Bears from improving the rest of the team with a big contract are legitimate reasons to not want him back (though this argument is clearly better than the first).

 

Why? That's perfectly legit. The whole [expletive] point about overpaying RBs is that teams inevitably regret it and it causes problems with the salary cap, because the salary cap forces you to make smart decisions with players. And the last decade or so has shown it's not smart to tie up a heck of a lot of money in RBs. It's much more important to solidify your passing game.

 

I guess this is where I'm getting confused. You acknowledge the trouble with committing too much to a RB but the immediately turnaround and try to negate the primary reason why it is troublesome to commit too much to a RB.

 

That's the difference. I think teams regret it NOT because of the salary cap issues, but the fact that RBs age quickly and get hurt and don't live up to the contract. I think teams are Ok with paying big money to a RB if he proves to be worth the elite contract he's getting paid. If a team pays big money to anyone, they know the salary cap implications in the future. Not saying it has no effect, but it's a lot easier to deal with if you're paying someone that's actually giving you production for that money.

[minnesotacubsfan]

help me out, what position has the worse contracts?

 

he suggests qb's and o linemen

http://gnightmoon2006.blogspot.com/2010/05/nfls-best-and-worst-contracts.html

 

bleacher report says its mixed:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/789937-nfl-free-agency-2011-10-players-who-were-horribly-overpaid

 

 

I realize the first is older, but it seems that any position can have a bad contract and in the nfl, the actual events of a bad contract is completely mixed among the positions. idk. The market is starting to say paying Forte what he wants is fairer and fairer every day.

[Banedon]

Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/31/chicago-wants-a-super-bowl-at-soldier-field/

[UMFan83]

The bottom line is that Matt Forte was a lot more valueable to us when he was our only offensive playmaker, constituting 80% of the running game and 60% of the passing game. Now that we have a really solid backup RB like Bush, and multiple dangerous receiving targets, the need for Forte has dropped a bit. That's not to say that he wouldnt make the Bears better, there's no doubt he would. But there is less of a need to spend that much money on a franchise RB when it could be allotted elsewhere.

 

Then again, the Bears have been operating below the cap for 2 years now, so it'd be nice if they spent that money somewhere. But I tend to lean towards the side of 'don't cave into Forte's demands and trade him if he refuses to sign an extension this year'.

[jersey cubs fan]

help me out, what position has the worse contracts?

 

he suggests qb's and o linemen

http://gnightmoon2006.blogspot.com/2010/05/nfls-best-and-worst-contracts.html

 

bleacher report says its mixed:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/789937-nfl-free-agency-2011-10-players-who-were-horribly-overpaid

 

 

I realize the first is older, but it seems that any position can have a bad contract and in the nfl, the actual events of a bad contract is completely mixed among the positions. idk. The market is starting to say paying Forte what he wants is fairer and fairer every day.

 

QBs with bad contracts are generally early first round picks who completely bust out. Or, one hit wonder backups who hit the jackpot in free agency from a desperate team. QBs that are actually good and paid for it generally live up to their contracts in terms of value and duration.

[Sammy Sofa]

Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/31/chicago-wants-a-super-bowl-at-soldier-field/

 

Horrible idea.

[jersey cubs fan]

Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/31/chicago-wants-a-super-bowl-at-soldier-field/

 

Horrible idea.

 

no it isn't

[Sammy Sofa]

I like my Super Bowls not played on the field equivalent of a chewed-up piece of beef, thank you very much.