As much as football sabermetrics are improving, I think it's still extremely hard to disentangle individual performance from line play, scheme, a head coach that likes to run it straight up the middle in every obvious running down, etc. And all of those factors have not been doing Montgomery any favors. That said, I don't think he is anything more than pretty good. It was silly to trade up for him and it would be even sillier to give him a meaningful second contract. The problem is that the expected yards metric says exactly what it's critics are saying vis a vie the Bears line play and play calling. 3.95 expected yard per rush is damn near the bottom for qualified backs. And as I've eyeballed that metric it seems to align pretty well on my intuition of teams with good scheme and line play and those that are poor. But intersecting Y/c with expected is something I'm not entirely sure of. At best it seems to tell us that there's scarcely any differenence between most RB while failing pretty bad to measure the extreme outliers. This variance issue does seem to lessen with large multi year samples. So it's perhaps not awful, but probably lacking any predictive value over a single season. But at the end of the day, DM isn't efficient. Doesn't mean he doesn't provide value. Ironically though many of the people who are most pissed about the article would probably love the alternative take. That if you want to improve your running game, invest 10M in your lineman to improve your expected value instead of 10M to a RB who will most likely struggle to significantly out perform his line play. The rest of the fan reaction is over emotional investment in DM who's play has been admirable given circumstances, but ultimately of seriously questionable long term value over other options.