Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

I don't think you are doing a good job of showing that at all. In a salary cap sport you have to make choices and let good players walk away simply for financial reasons. If you have an elite RB and pay him elite RB money, you are almost certainly doing so at the expense of, or in the place of, your passing game. And if your passing game isn't settled, your team isn't. The Bears managed to field a great team for about a year and a half thanks to elite defense and a RB/QB/WR combo that barely got the job done. They couldn't maintain that success though, and you won't maintain any success if you put your salary cap eggs in the RB basket. It's just not smart NFL decision making to spend big on the position.

[rawaction]

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.

 

I don't think you are doing a good job of showing that at all. In a salary cap sport you have to make choices and let good players walk away simply for financial reasons. If you have an elite RB and pay him elite RB money, you are almost certainly doing so at the expense of, or in the place of, your passing game. And if your passing game isn't settled, your team isn't. The Bears managed to field a great team for about a year and a half thanks to elite defense and a RB/QB/WR combo that barely got the job done. They couldn't maintain that success though, and you won't maintain any success if you put your salary cap eggs in the RB basket. It's just not smart NFL decision making to spend big on the position.

 

1. While spending money on the RB position does take away money from another position, it doesn't necessarily do so at the extent of the passing game. It can do so at the expense of the OL, the defense, the kicker, whatever. For example, do you know the Saints have over 7Mil tied into the RB position? Pierre Thomas, Sproles and Ingram make over 7Mil. It didn't take away from the Saints passing game. And the same is true for any position. The Colts tied too much money into Peyton Manning and couldn't field a team of players worthy to even be on a roster. Obviously, that wouldn't have mattered if Peyton wouldn't have gotten hurt, but when you are paying that much money to anyone, you are going to hamstring the rest of the team. Hell, the Bears have been hamstrung by the money tied up into LB and the defense in general.

 

2. There's a difference between spending big on the position and going out and spending money on the position though. There is value in continuity. It's not like the teams that are not spending big money at the RB position are just putting a new guy in there every year. If they had a good RB still in his prime, they'd likely pay him big money also. The Giants didn't pay Bradshaw a ton of money 4/$18Mil, but they also had Jacobs on the payroll last season. And just used a 1st round pick on a RB. If the Bears thought they were going to sign Forte long-term, they wouldn't have signed Bush. So, what's the difference between Forte and cheap guys like Bell, etc. vs. having a 3-headed monster for the same money like NO has? That's not to say the Bears should sign Forte, but if NO, NE, NYG, PIT had a RB like Forte, they'd probably think pretty long and hard about re-signing him. And I'd imagine if their QBs came out and definitely said they wanted Forte back, he'd be re-signed by those teams.

[jersey cubs fan]

For example, do you know the Saints have over 7Mil tied into the RB position? Pierre Thomas, Sproles and Ingram make over 7Mil.

 

$7m for 3 guys is not a lot of money and has nothing to do with the discussion of spending $20+m guaranteed and $7m+ per on one guy.

 

 

 

2. There's a difference between spending big on the position and going out and spending money on the position though. There is value in continuity.

 

There is? I'm not sure why that's just an assumption.

 

It's not like the teams that are not spending big money at the RB position are just putting a new guy in there every year. If they had a good RB still in his prime, they'd likely pay him big money also. The Giants didn't pay Bradshaw a ton of money 4/$18Mil, but they also had Jacobs on the payroll last season. And just used a 1st round pick on a RB. If the Bears thought they were going to sign Forte long-term, they wouldn't have signed Bush. So, what's the difference between Forte and cheap guys like Bell, etc. vs. having a 3-headed monster for the same money like NO has? That's not to say the Bears should sign Forte, but if NO, NE, NYG, PIT had a RB like Forte, they'd probably think pretty long and hard about re-signing him. And I'd imagine if their QBs came out and definitely said they wanted Forte back, he'd be re-signed by those teams.

 

I'm not really sure what it is you are saying here. Anyway, the past decade plus is littered with teams who have regretted giving huge contracts to supposedly elite RBs. It's an unnecessarily risky investment. The teams with actual elite RB haven't exactly reaped a ton of benefits from those guys either.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

no, it was 2 out of 4, and those teams had quarterbacks that fueled their heat. as far as the 10-6 packers, they may have the best qb ever.

 

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.

 

some running backs are more expendable than others, and in some cases (minnesota), the presence of a truly special running back can blind them into thinking that they are better than they are and that they are close to winning when they are not.

 

the concept is this: even when you have a great running back, the difference between greatness and goodness is so truly slight when it comes to team success that there is no reason to spend huge on that great back. trade the back to a team that will overvalue him and build a wall around your quarterback.

[Magnetic Curses]

For example, do you know the Saints have over 7Mil tied into the RB position? Pierre Thomas, Sproles and Ingram make over 7Mil.

 

$7m for 3 guys is not a lot of money and has nothing to do with the discussion of spending $20+m guaranteed and $7m+ per on one guy.

 

 

 

2. There's a difference between spending big on the position and going out and spending money on the position though. There is value in continuity.

 

There is? I'm not sure why that's just an assumption.

 

It's not like the teams that are not spending big money at the RB position are just putting a new guy in there every year. If they had a good RB still in his prime, they'd likely pay him big money also. The Giants didn't pay Bradshaw a ton of money 4/$18Mil, but they also had Jacobs on the payroll last season. And just used a 1st round pick on a RB. If the Bears thought they were going to sign Forte long-term, they wouldn't have signed Bush. So, what's the difference between Forte and cheap guys like Bell, etc. vs. having a 3-headed monster for the same money like NO has? That's not to say the Bears should sign Forte, but if NO, NE, NYG, PIT had a RB like Forte, they'd probably think pretty long and hard about re-signing him. And I'd imagine if their QBs came out and definitely said they wanted Forte back, he'd be re-signed by those teams.

 

I'm not really sure what it is you are saying here. Anyway, the past decade plus is littered with teams who have regretted giving huge contracts to supposedly elite RBs. It's an unnecessarily risky investment. The teams with actual elite RB haven't exactly reaped a ton of benefits from those guys either.

 

yeah, what he's saying is really odd. the saints' "three-headed monster" is versatile, diversified, and cheap. i'd much rather have that than forte and filler.

[rawaction]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

And again, I don't care that the Bears aren't paying Forte money. I don't think it would be a disaster if they did, but it's also not ideal. That's the point I've been making in this thread for like 4 months. Don't understand why you guys keep acting like I'm not. I was simply responding to the notion that elite teams don't pay RBs, when it's clear that some do. And then when I make a point, you guys go off on a different thing that I said.

[Magnetic Curses]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

[rawaction]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

 

No, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand the difference in spending 7 Mil at the RB position on 1 star and 2 scrubs vs. spending 7Mil at the RB position on 3 average players with different strengths, if the problem at hand is spending 7Mil on the RB position.

[Magnetic Curses]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

 

No, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand the difference in spending 7 Mil at the RB position on 1 star and 2 scrubs vs. spending 7Mil at the RB position on 3 average players with different strengths, if the problem at hand is spending 7Mil on the RB position.

 

so you don't understand the usefulness of having 2 guys who average over 5 yards a carry, one of whom averages 6.9 ypc along with another who goes about 4, split carries? you seriously don't get it? that's weird.

 

you're being intellectually dishonest for the sake of your bad argument.

[jersey cubs fan]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

 

No, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand the difference in spending 7 Mil at the RB position on 1 star and 2 scrubs vs. spending 7Mil at the RB position on 3 average players with different strengths, if the problem at hand is spending 7Mil on the RB position.

 

I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. First off, $7m isn't the threshold. The "elites" are getting and/or want $8+ on average, and in reality those deals often pay well over that in the first couple years. Second, if you have 3 guys all contributing and combining to make $7m, having one of them get injured or suddenly lose effectiveness is not the problem of having your one stud do the same. 3 guys splitting $7m provides flexibility and fresh legs, whereas one guy making $8+ makes you far too reliant on that one guy producing, and doing it for multiple years when that player's production really doesn't correlate all that greatly with team success anyway.

[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?

 

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).

 

What I'm going for is that a high yardage total doesn't necessarily equate to a "good running game." Teams that are good and winning will often just have high yardage totals because they end up running the ball a lot once they have leads. It can be a byproduct of having leads.

 

A good running game is typically one that's efficient and gets more yards per attempt. And the top 4 teams in YPC missed the playoffs.

[bukie]

7 of the above average rushing efficient teams made the playoffs. Saints 2nd, Pats 4th, Packers 6th, Steelers 7th, Ravens 9th, Texans 10th, Broncos 13th.

 

11 of the above average passing efficient teams made the playoffs: Packers 1st, Pats 2nd, Saints 3rd, Giants 4th, Steelers 7th, Falcons 8th, Texans 9th, Lions 10th, Bengals 11th, 49ers 12th, Ravens 14th.

[rawaction]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

 

No, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand the difference in spending 7 Mil at the RB position on 1 star and 2 scrubs vs. spending 7Mil at the RB position on 3 average players with different strengths, if the problem at hand is spending 7Mil on the RB position.

 

I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. First off, $7m isn't the threshold. The "elites" are getting and/or want $8+ on average, and in reality those deals often pay well over that in the first couple years. Second, if you have 3 guys all contributing and combining to make $7m, having one of them get injured or suddenly lose effectiveness is not the problem of having your one stud do the same. 3 guys splitting $7m provides flexibility and fresh legs, whereas one guy making $8+ makes you far too reliant on that one guy producing, and doing it for multiple years when that player's production really doesn't correlate all that greatly with team success anyway.

 

But you didn't say anything about relying on 1 guy before. Your main point was not spending money at RB at the expense of the passing game. That's why I brought up the Saints who spent money at the RB position and didn't sacrifice anything in the pass game.

[Magnetic Curses]

Goony, the Saints thing was in direct response to you talking about "a single elite RB". What's the difference between spending 7Mil on 1 player and league minimum on his backups vs. spending 7 Mil on 3 players? It's still 7Mil tied up in the RB position, which I assumed you would still be against based on everything you said.

 

you're honestly saying you don't understand the difference between spending 7 mil on one good player and 7 mil on three good players?

 

No, I'm honestly saying that I don't understand the difference in spending 7 Mil at the RB position on 1 star and 2 scrubs vs. spending 7Mil at the RB position on 3 average players with different strengths, if the problem at hand is spending 7Mil on the RB position.

 

I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. First off, $7m isn't the threshold. The "elites" are getting and/or want $8+ on average, and in reality those deals often pay well over that in the first couple years. Second, if you have 3 guys all contributing and combining to make $7m, having one of them get injured or suddenly lose effectiveness is not the problem of having your one stud do the same. 3 guys splitting $7m provides flexibility and fresh legs, whereas one guy making $8+ makes you far too reliant on that one guy producing, and doing it for multiple years when that player's production really doesn't correlate all that greatly with team success anyway.

 

But you didn't say anything about relying on 1 guy before. Your main point was not spending money at RB at the expense of the passing game. That's why I brought up the Saints who spent money at the RB position and didn't sacrifice anything in the pass game.

 

the saints spent their money wisely in the running game, are much more impervious to injury because of it, and will have 3 good running backs with fresh legs and low-mileage every season. in addition, sproles returns kicks and can line up in the slot for you and be a threat. between sproles and thomas, you have 1,100 yards of receiver.

[rawaction]

 

the saints spent their money wisely in the running game, are much more impervious to injury because of it, and will have 3 good running backs with fresh legs and low-mileage every season. in addition, sproles returns kicks and can line up in the slot for you and be a threat. between sproles and thomas, you have 1,100 yards of receiver.

 

And the Bears could get the same from Forte, Khalil Bell, and some random UDFA and get the same (or better) production for the same money. And I still don't understand why that's so much wiser. Sure you "rely" on Forte to stay healthy to some extent, but Bell showed minimal dropoff and the Bears clearly could have won games if Cutler was healthy. And you rely on all the Saints guys to stay healthy in the same way. If one of them gets hurt, those legs aren't so fresh anymore. Lose Sproles, passing game suffers and you lack big play ability in the run game. Lose Ingram, and short yardage is a bitch. Bears lost Forte and were still productive enough at the RB position without their franchise QB.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

the saints spent their money wisely in the running game, are much more impervious to injury because of it, and will have 3 good running backs with fresh legs and low-mileage every season. in addition, sproles returns kicks and can line up in the slot for you and be a threat. between sproles and thomas, you have 1,100 yards of receiver.

 

And the Bears could get the same from Forte, Khalil Bell, and some random UDFA and get the same (or better) production for the same money. And I still don't understand why that's so much wiser. Sure you "rely" on Forte to stay healthy to some extent, but Bell showed minimal dropoff and the Bears clearly could have won games if Cutler was healthy. And you rely on all the Saints guys to stay healthy in the same way. If one of them gets hurt, those legs aren't so fresh anymore. Lose Sproles, passing game suffers and you lack big play ability in the run game. Lose Ingram, and short yardage is a bitch. Bears lost Forte and were still productive enough at the RB position without their franchise QB.

 

give up this game. you're really squirming here, it pains me to see it.

 

considering that both thomas and sproles are better than forte and that ingram is arguably better, yeah, i don't see your logic. lose any of them and you still have 2 better options.

 

just because forte has a ton of mileage and the bears relied heavily on him to carry the ball a lot doesn't mean that the saints would rather pay a guy like him a ton of guaranteed money than pay the same money to 3 guys that give them a lot more flexibility and are individually better.

 

as far as your last sentence, i don't understand, the quarterback went down and they lost every important game they played and forte was replaceable? how does that at all support your point? if anything, it supports mine and goony's.

[Magnetic Curses]

forte should get paid millions of guaranteed dollars, but we can get similar production from guys like kahlil bell and marion barber? sounds like you're up your own ass in logic.

[rawaction]

 

the saints spent their money wisely in the running game, are much more impervious to injury because of it, and will have 3 good running backs with fresh legs and low-mileage every season. in addition, sproles returns kicks and can line up in the slot for you and be a threat. between sproles and thomas, you have 1,100 yards of receiver.

 

And the Bears could get the same from Forte, Khalil Bell, and some random UDFA and get the same (or better) production for the same money. And I still don't understand why that's so much wiser. Sure you "rely" on Forte to stay healthy to some extent, but Bell showed minimal dropoff and the Bears clearly could have won games if Cutler was healthy. And you rely on all the Saints guys to stay healthy in the same way. If one of them gets hurt, those legs aren't so fresh anymore. Lose Sproles, passing game suffers and you lack big play ability in the run game. Lose Ingram, and short yardage is a bitch. Bears lost Forte and were still productive enough at the RB position without their franchise QB.

 

give up this game. you're really squirming here, it pains me to see it.

 

considering that both thomas and sproles are better than forte and that ingram is arguably better, yeah, i don't see your logic. lose any of them and you still have 2 better options.

 

just because forte has a ton of mileage and the bears relied heavily on him to carry the ball a lot doesn't mean that the saints would rather pay a guy like him a ton of guaranteed money than pay the same money to 3 guys that give them a lot more flexibility and are individually better.

 

as far as your last sentence, i don't understand, the quarterback went down and they lost every important game they played and forte was replaceable? how does that at all support your point? if anything, it supports mine and goony's.

 

Are you [expletive] serious?

[Magnetic Curses]

i forgot, you're the guy who thinks new orleans would sign forte to a big contract if given the chance based on absolutely nothing, rather than take 3 guys who are statistically more productive and less costly in total. you make perfect sense.

[Magnetic Curses]

and also, forte isn't replaceable except when it suits your argument.

[SpongeWorthy]

Those guys are not better than Forte in a vacuum.

[Magnetic Curses]

i don't know how you can assert that they aren't, i mean, barber and bell had success in the offense behind the same bears line that forte ran behind.

 

this whole conversation is a pretty good indicator that good backs are easy to find and it's dumb to pay one running back a lot of guaranteed money.

[SpongeWorthy]

They're pieces in a system where the all world pass attack sets up the run to be productive on a per carry basis. Edited May 31, 2012 by SpongeWorthy

[SpongeWorthy]

.

[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?