Magnetic Curses

nice, me likey

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 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.

Yep i'm thinking groce told him thanks but no thanks. it's becoming clearer and clearer that he's not a high-major player at the division 1 level. Not a high major player? Rivals (I know you hate them) has him in their newest Top 100 and the other services have him as a three star. you'll see why. i was a little surprised that he was playing behind bobo drummond, but then i actually saw him play. it wasn't pretty, he's not 6-4 and he cannot dunk any more than i can. his star has fallen from the scout lists and he has been a 4-star the entire time. the current 3-star rating is just because of the early hype he received. we'll see where he is in the fall.

if we lose hill i will flip the [expletive] out, but i'm confident that we won't.

Yep i'm thinking groce told him thanks but no thanks. it's becoming clearer and clearer that he's not a high-major player at the division 1 level.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

embarrassing situation but not cataclysmic.

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.

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?

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

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. 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.

While I agree with your general point, I wouldn't say lot of mediocre teams make the playoffs, a couple per year, probably. It's usually because of a crap division that gets their winner in by default. Most playoff teams are pretty good. But if you want to be really good for a considerable amount of time, the way to do it is by solidifying your QB/passing game, not by paying one RB. that's pretty much what i'm getting at.

i don't know why you continue to insist upon the importance of running backs, they're obviously mostly interchangeable. spending big on them when you have weaknesses in other areas is suicide. teams that because they have a good running back that they have some superstar that can lift a mediocre team to greatness. that's just not true. the only position that can do that is quarterback, surround the quarterback with a line and with receivers and you can do whatever you want at running back.

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.

works for me

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. rex grossman proved that you can make it to the super bowl without being elite at the qb position, but you better have a killer defense that takes the ball away from fools and runs the other way with it and you better have an offensive line that can run block--not to mention 2 running backs that split duties. let's just trade him for some picks.

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

personally, if i were an NFL GM, i'd always have a veteran like Bush on my team at a lower cost, draft a running back on day 3 every couple of years and have a 3rd-down type guy or snag someone with healthy legs off the scrap heap from time to time.

yeah, agreed. it's a market inefficiency for sure.

How do you figure? Nearly every RB who has gotten the 'big contract' really hasn't produced accordingly. The one guy I can think of that even deserved the money was AP and even then he was hurt last year playing for a team in a rebuilding phase. dumb teams have been paying for the RB of late though. The market is set by everybody, not just the SB champions. the bears don't have to pay what the market sets. they can let him walk if they think he's too expensive. they can take advantage of those dumb teams by dumping money into positions that have more true value, and they have, for the most part.