rawaction

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

He got 2 Ks in the first Pitch count has gotta be up there. 14 batters faced thru 3. 4 hits and 1 walk. But 4 Ks and only 1 unearned run (his own throwing error).

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.

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.

Barney walkoff? WTF?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

He was on the DL earlier for blisters. Maybe there's something going on there again, but they didn't DL him. There's also a possibility that he is in the bullpen now and maybe he's just been passed over for more shorter relievers, as all his relief outings were 4+ innings. Starters have been going deeper into games for Peoria recently. Of course, that still doesn't explain why Wells is not starting in the first place.

Good observation. Seems very routine that a hacker will take some walks early, then give it up quickly enough. Vitters, Colvin, Patterson, Barney, etc. etc.. He also is hitting .304 with half his doubles and HRs for the season in the last 2 games. So, the average and power hasn't gone anywhere, which is a positive sign.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vitters getting respect. Intentional walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out in the 8th. Bases loaded for Sappelt down 4-3.

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.

And one should be able to understand why he is upset and why some perceive the Bears organization as the bad guy here. While arguably better RBs have gotten the money he wants this offseason (Foster, McCoy), similar and even lesser RBs have also gotten the money he wants (Deangelo Williams, Lynch). I don't think either side is wrong. And I don't fault either side for being upset. It's the Bears right to use the franchise tag. It's Forte's right to be disappointed and skip OTAs and part of training camp if he wants.

Forte is said to want 20 mil guaranteed and about 8 Mil/year. The Bears supposed have offered 6Mil/year and about 16 guaranteed. The middle ground probably wouldn't work either at this point as several RBs have received more than 18M and 7Mil/year. The Bears are concerned about Forte's health. Give him a 5-year deal and he'll be in his age 32 season in the final year, and RBs tend to hit a wall at 29 if they have a lot of mileage on them. And remember Forte's knee injury this year was not his first. He was hurt a couple years ago and played thru it and had a horrible season. He also missed time at Tulane due to knee injuries. And he had a ton of carries in college and a bunch of touches his first 2 years in the league. The Bears have every right to be very concerned about Forte's future. I can't blame them for not giving him what he wants or even trying to meet him somewhere in the middle.