What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Chicago Bears 2012 Offseason Thread (1 Viewer)

Right. It's difficult to make a judgement without knowing the contract offer, but if I had to guess, Forte isn't asking for anything near ADP money. Of course that's just my opinion. He's never seemed like the greedy type.
I don't see him as being greedy either. From what I have read, and seen of Forte he is very likable. His jersey is one of 4 that I own and proudly wear. But, even if we don't know what the Bears are offering, there are enough recent RB contracts to compare with. I believe that Forte is worth somewhere in the $8.5 million range. But, that was before the signing of M Bush. I know fantasy football and the NFL are not the same. But, it's no different in managing a salary cap. Forte is my 2nd highest paid player on my team. Other areas (like WR) are not as strong, because I had to choose one or the other. My next running back makes 40% less than Forte. The money has to come from somewhere else to pay Forte $8.5 mil. I am just not certain that its worth doing.
 
OK, just trying to look at this from all sides. Any chance the Bears stand pat with their offer to Forte. Draft a RB in Round 2 or 3. (maybe D Martin, L Miller) At that point, you still have a one-two punch with Bush and a young back. (and at a much cheaper overall cost.I love Forte. (in fact he is the 2nd highest paid player on my fantasy team) But, when I look at this situation long term, do I really want to have my 26 and a 28 year old RB's signed to long term deals? It makes sense that the Bears want to franchise Forte for one more year and then grab a young back in the draft next year. With the devaluing of RB's, there will be a lot of talent in the 2-5th rounds
This pisses me off and smacks as cheap and low class. Forte has been a great soldier and deserves his reward. We dont need to be adding to our needs either. We have a stud rb, we dont need to be wasting a valuable pick on the same position because we want to be cheap swindlers.
Agree completely.
The Bears should be offering him a really nice contract but like it or not, they have leverage (blame the CBA for this) and many of the running backs that he wants to be paid like were idiotic contracts and most of those backs were unrestricted free agents. The Deangelo Williams contract is going to be an albatross for the Panthers. Paying Lynch that much money shows that the Seahawks are dumb! The Bush numbers that somebody cited are way off! As someone corrected whoever posted those numbers he is getting $7 mil guaranteed but the contract is for 4 years and $14 Mil. I don't want the Bears to play their leverage card too much but if they offer him Lynch money and he wants AP money than I will start siding with management. If Forte is offered a contract a lot below Lynch than I would probably side with Forte. The one thing that is not taken into account is the player evaluation that was done on Forte. Maybe Emery (and Angelo in the past) doesn't think he is going to hold on based on some of his past injuries. Obviously this is pure speculation but teams like the Patriots seem to let go of players when they think there is going to be significant drop off. Forte is still young so I don't think this is the case but you never know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny how everyone keeps saying that Williams money is stupid, and the Bears would be foolish. I agree that Forte is not worth ADP money. But, how could you offer him a similar contract to Gore, knowing he is younger and probably will be more productive than Gore over the next 3-4 years.

 
It's funny how everyone keeps saying that Williams money is stupid, and the Bears would be foolish. I agree that Forte is not worth ADP money. But, how could you offer him a similar contract to Gore, knowing he is younger and probably will be more productive than Gore over the next 3-4 years.
Gore and Forte's 3 year averages are almost identical. The only difference is that Gore averages about half a yard more per carry than Forte, with Forte having about 10 more catches per season. Gore just turned 28, Forte turns 27 in during this season. I really don't see how those two contracts should be significantly different. :shrug:
 
I think Forte's guaranteed money should be closer to 20 than to Gore's 14, probably 18 or so. Just my opinion on the numbers. I think you can watch both teams play and realize how much more important Forte is to the Bears than Gore is to the 49ers.

 
'DoubleG said:
'KCitons said:
It's funny how everyone keeps saying that Williams money is stupid, and the Bears would be foolish. I agree that Forte is not worth ADP money. But, how could you offer him a similar contract to Gore, knowing he is younger and probably will be more productive than Gore over the next 3-4 years.
Gore and Forte's 3 year averages are almost identical. The only difference is that Gore averages about half a yard more per carry than Forte, with Forte having about 10 more catches per season. Gore just turned 28, Forte turns 27 in during this season. I really don't see how those two contracts should be significantly different. :shrug:
Gore signed his contract last August, he was 28yrs and 2mths. If Forte signs his in August of this year, he will be 26yrs 7mths. Thats nearly a year and a half younger. Gore was also coming off a 2010 season where he only played in 10 games. (Sound familiar, Forte is coming off a season where he only played 12 games) Perhaps, the 49ers got away with a low ball offer for Gore.

Fact still remains that Gore is one example of a low priced starting RB. There are other multiple examples of starting RB's that are making more money (DWill, Lynch) Arian Foster is another Stud RB that signed a big contract. (5yr $43 million. $8.6 mil a year) I could argue, if Forte was in Houston the past 2 years, he would have led the league in rushing with that Offensive Line. Let's see how well Foster does this year with the Texans O line in flux.

Remember Franchise tag $$ is determined by taking the average salary of the top 5 players at the position. Why would you not work towards an average of the top 5-10 salaries for Forte. Starting with Gores numbers, seams like you are starting at the lowest end of the scale.

So, now you have to decide which side of the line you are on. Is Forte only as good as Gore? Should he take a $6.5 million and be happy? Or is Forte better than DWill/Lynch and closer to Foster at $7.5-8 million a year. I personally think he is worth the $8 million, $7.25 mil for future talent and $750k "thank you" money for the past 2 years. If they don't want to pay him this much, the Bears are at fault. If Forte wants more than this, then the Bears need work on a plan "B" at RB in the near future.

Once you decide which side you are on, then you can understand how to handle the situation if you are the Bears or Forte.

 
'mbuehner said:
And wtf do the Saints, Pats, Steelers and Green Bay have to do with the Bears? Completely different offenses. You can win with either if you are good on both sides. :loco:
You have the data to support that?
You :confused:
You asked what saints pats steelers and gb have to do with the bears, the answer is nothing, they are recent champions. This is a passing league- Forte is great but this isnt costless, what are you willing to sacrifice to make a 27 year old Forte haapy? A left tackle? A defensive end to compliment peppers? This is the kind of contract that seems to haunt habitually bad franchises.
 
'DoubleG said:
'KCitons said:
It's funny how everyone keeps saying that Williams money is stupid, and the Bears would be foolish. I agree that Forte is not worth ADP money. But, how could you offer him a similar contract to Gore, knowing he is younger and probably will be more productive than Gore over the next 3-4 years.
Gore and Forte's 3 year averages are almost identical. The only difference is that Gore averages about half a yard more per carry than Forte, with Forte having about 10 more catches per season. Gore just turned 28, Forte turns 27 in during this season. I really don't see how those two contracts should be significantly different. :shrug:
Gore signed his contract last August, he was 28yrs and 2mths. If Forte signs his in August of this year, he will be 26yrs 7mths. Thats nearly a year and a half younger. Gore was also coming off a 2010 season where he only played in 10 games. (Sound familiar, Forte is coming off a season where he only played 12 games) Perhaps, the 49ers got away with a low ball offer for Gore.

Fact still remains that Gore is one example of a low priced starting RB. There are other multiple examples of starting RB's that are making more money (DWill, Lynch) Arian Foster is another Stud RB that signed a big contract. (5yr $43 million. $8.6 mil a year) I could argue, if Forte was in Houston the past 2 years, he would have led the league in rushing with that Offensive Line. Let's see how well Foster does this year with the Texans O line in flux.

Remember Franchise tag $$ is determined by taking the average salary of the top 5 players at the position. Why would you not work towards an average of the top 5-10 salaries for Forte. Starting with Gores numbers, seams like you are starting at the lowest end of the scale.

So, now you have to decide which side of the line you are on. Is Forte only as good as Gore? Should he take a $6.5 million and be happy? Or is Forte better than DWill/Lynch and closer to Foster at $7.5-8 million a year. I personally think he is worth the $8 million, $7.25 mil for future talent and $750k "thank you" money for the past 2 years. If they don't want to pay him this much, the Bears are at fault. If Forte wants more than this, then the Bears need work on a plan "B" at RB in the near future.

Once you decide which side you are on, then you can understand how to handle the situation if you are the Bears or Forte.
Forte was franchised. That means he will make $7.8 million this year no matter what. Yes, Gore's contract would be the "starting point" - in fact I would be shocked if the Bears didn't offer Forte somewhere between what Gore and Foster got (probably closer to Gore - which, based on their production is "acceptable"). The other thing to keep in mind is that you're not trying to sign Forte in a vacuum. They are trying to build a team. If we're going to look at Gore, DWill, and Lynch - how about looking at what those teams have at QB? The teams that signed those RBs to big (and to some people - especially in Lynch's case - over-priced) contracts, have little else on the offensive side of the ball - and especially at QB. The Bears, it seems are trying to move away from the "we get off the bus running" mentality (in the same way that many of the succesful franchises have done). If Forte doesn't want to play for a $7.8 million franchise tender or a Gore-like (or slightlt higher) contract, then perhaps it is time for the Bears to thak him for his great contributions, but move on the way the Saints, Pats, Packers, Steelers, etc. have.

 
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries. Those are:1 Stephen Davis WAS RB 356 22.2 1,432 2 Corey Dillon CIN HB 340 21.2 1,315 3 LaDainian Tomlinson SD RB 339 21.2 1,236 4 Curtis Martin NYJ RB 333 20.8 1,513 5 Priest Holmes KC RB 327 20.4 1,555 6 Eddie George TEN RB 315 19.7 939 7 Lamar Smith MIA HB 313 19.6 968 7 Ricky Williams NO RB 313 19.6 1,245 9 Shaun Alexander SEA RB 309 19.3 1,318 10 Ahman Green GB RB 304 19.0 1,387 Another thing that points to how RBs are utilized differently is if you look at carry leaders over the last fifteen years. Here are those:2011 Maurice Jones-Drew (26) 343 JAX2010 Michael Turner (28) 334 ATL2009 Chris Johnson (24) 358 TEN2008 Michael Turner (26) 376 ATL2007 Clinton Portis (26) 325 WAS2006 Larry Johnson (27) 416 KAN2005 Shaun Alexander (28) 370 SEA2004 Curtis Martin+ (31) 371 NYJ2003 Ricky Williams (26) 392 MIA2002 Ricky Williams (25) 383 MIA2001 Stephen Davis (27) 356 WAS2000 Eddie George (27) 403 TEN1999 Edgerrin James (21) 369 IND1998 Jamal Anderson (26) 410 ATL1997 Jerome Bettis (25) 375 PITAs you can see the leader in number of carries has been going down, particularly in the last five years. In the last five years the carries leader has been below 350 carries three of the five years. In the prior ten years that never happened. As a matter of fact the leader was over 400 three times. I think teams have realized that overloading one guy shortens his career. Larry Johnson had 416 carries in 2006, and never gained over a thousand yards again. Eddie George had a minimum of 1294 yards in the four years before he had 403 carries in 2000. He never gained that many yards again. Jamal Anderson had one productive year after the 410 carries in 1998 and that was it. This has morphed in to a passing league. Teams are looking to find more versatile backs, and trying to limit their carries by sharing the load. The Patriots utilize a group of situational backs. If one guy goes down they plug in someone else. A lot of teams, like the Giants, are rotating two backs, or at least did last year. San Diego was using both Matthews and Tolbert. Even Houston used a lot of Ben Tate, even when Foster was healthy. There are still teams that have a workhorse back, like SF, St Louis, and Minn, but it isn't as prevalent as it was ten years ago, and more teams are trying to use multiple backs in the backfield. For the most part the role of the running back has changed, and what teams expect from their running backs has changed too.
 
I agree with some of what you say. We could guess that Forte would be happy playing for $7.8 million each year. Just not on a year-by-year basis. And this is where things have gotten sticky. I get the feeling the Bears have made Forte a Gore sized offer that has multiple years and less money overall. Their stance may be, if Forte wants closer to $8 mil per year, they will give it to him with the franchise tag on a year by year basis.

The most obvious thing in this situation is that the Bears must be offering something much lower than the $7.8mil franchise amount or Forte is asking for a number somewhere above $9mil. Any offers that fall between those two numbers, you would think could get worked out. If they are haggling over a $2 mil difference they should be able to split the difference and settle around $8 mil.

With that said, I think the Bears would be willing to pay the $8 mil. I honestly think Forte is the one to blame here. He has been pretty vocal about his unhappiness with the offer. Yet, there has been no release of actual numbers. Things get leaked all the time, some on accident and some on purpose. I think Forte has kept the actual numbers private, because most would say the offer is fair. Since he is probably asking for more than $9 million or more, he wouldn't want it known to the fan base.

If this was the case, I would back the Bears decision to do whatever to protect the interest of the team and the future. If that meant, trade, draft, let Forte hold out, I would support it.

 
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries. Those are:1 Stephen Davis WAS RB 356 22.2 1,432 2 Corey Dillon CIN HB 340 21.2 1,315 3 LaDainian Tomlinson SD RB 339 21.2 1,236 4 Curtis Martin NYJ RB 333 20.8 1,513 5 Priest Holmes KC RB 327 20.4 1,555 6 Eddie George TEN RB 315 19.7 939 7 Lamar Smith MIA HB 313 19.6 968 7 Ricky Williams NO RB 313 19.6 1,245 9 Shaun Alexander SEA RB 309 19.3 1,318 10 Ahman Green GB RB 304 19.0 1,387 Another thing that points to how RBs are utilized differently is if you look at carry leaders over the last fifteen years. Here are those:2011 Maurice Jones-Drew (26) 343 JAX2010 Michael Turner (28) 334 ATL2009 Chris Johnson (24) 358 TEN2008 Michael Turner (26) 376 ATL2007 Clinton Portis (26) 325 WAS2006 Larry Johnson (27) 416 KAN2005 Shaun Alexander (28) 370 SEA2004 Curtis Martin+ (31) 371 NYJ2003 Ricky Williams (26) 392 MIA2002 Ricky Williams (25) 383 MIA2001 Stephen Davis (27) 356 WAS2000 Eddie George (27) 403 TEN1999 Edgerrin James (21) 369 IND1998 Jamal Anderson (26) 410 ATL1997 Jerome Bettis (25) 375 PITAs you can see the leader in number of carries has been going down, particularly in the last five years. In the last five years the carries leader has been below 350 carries three of the five years. In the prior ten years that never happened. As a matter of fact the leader was over 400 three times. I think teams have realized that overloading one guy shortens his career. Larry Johnson had 416 carries in 2006, and never gained over a thousand yards again. Eddie George had a minimum of 1294 yards in the four years before he had 403 carries in 2000. He never gained that many yards again. Jamal Anderson had one productive year after the 410 carries in 1998 and that was it. This has morphed in to a passing league. Teams are looking to find more versatile backs, and trying to limit their carries by sharing the load. The Patriots utilize a group of situational backs. If one guy goes down they plug in someone else. A lot of teams, like the Giants, are rotating two backs, or at least did last year. San Diego was using both Matthews and Tolbert. Even Houston used a lot of Ben Tate, even when Foster was healthy. There are still teams that have a workhorse back, like SF, St Louis, and Minn, but it isn't as prevalent as it was ten years ago, and more teams are trying to use multiple backs in the backfield. For the most part the role of the running back has changed, and what teams expect from their running backs has changed too.
The league is morphing into a passing league. But, you will still need a RB. And, what better to have at the RB position than a dual threat back like Forte?
 
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries.
Everything you said here is pretty well known, but that still does not counter what I said. Looking at it from Forte's side; he is going to see the two guys who are at his production/talent/age level from this offseason and what they got and expect similar. And he has absolutely earned the right to feel that way.Looking at it from the Bears side, I dont see any way the offense can be better without him in it. We are not even remotely close to turning into a high octane passing offense. We are going to need balance for the forseeable future, and Michael Bush and Khalil Bell will be a big step down from Forte and Bush.
 
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...

Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries.
Everything you said here is pretty well known, but that still does not counter what I said. Looking at it from Forte's side; he is going to see the two guys who are at his production/talent/age level from this offseason and what they got and expect similar. And he has absolutely earned the right to feel that way.Looking at it from the Bears side, I dont see any way the offense can be better without him in it. We are not even remotely close to turning into a high octane passing offense. We are going to need balance for the forseeable future, and Michael Bush and Khalil Bell will be a big step down from Forte and Bush.
You forgot about my suggestion of adding another RB through the draft. Yes, I know there is no guarantee that any rookie will perform as well as Forte. But, with the Bears investing over $7 mil on Bush this season, they must think he can carry the rock in Forte's absence.If age is a question with Forte and the money. Then draft someone younger. If his talent isn't special and you can find a replacement for cheaper, then do it. If age and talent are not a concern, then the only assumption is that Forte is asking for too much.

 
Where do you keep getting 7 mil? He's getting paid 2. :confused: Signing Bush has nothing to do with the Bears thinking he can carry the load or keep up with Forte's production either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...

Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries.
Everything you said here is pretty well known, but that still does not counter what I said. Looking at it from Forte's side; he is going to see the two guys who are at his production/talent/age level from this offseason and what they got and expect similar. And he has absolutely earned the right to feel that way.Looking at it from the Bears side, I dont see any way the offense can be better without him in it. We are not even remotely close to turning into a high octane passing offense. We are going to need balance for the forseeable future, and Michael Bush and Khalil Bell will be a big step down from Forte and Bush.
You forgot about my suggestion of adding another RB through the draft. Yes, I know there is no guarantee that any rookie will perform as well as Forte. But, with the Bears investing over $7 mil on Bush this season, they must think he can carry the rock in Forte's absence.If age is a question with Forte and the money. Then draft someone younger. If his talent isn't special and you can find a replacement for cheaper, then do it. If age and talent are not a concern, then the only assumption is that Forte is asking for too much.
What are you talking about? We already know age and talent are not questions. And fine, take some backup type rb in the third round. It doesnt help the offense, and screws us out of drafting a position we really need.
 
Where do you keep getting 7 mil? He's getting paid 2. :confused: Signing Bush has nothing to do with the Bears thinking he can carry the load or keep up with Forte's production either.
He's considering the signing bonus "investing 7mil". Technically from the McCaskey money standpoint, yes, they are giving him a 9 mil or so check this year. From a cap perspective he is counting about 3.75mil against our cap this year.
 
Where do you keep getting 7 mil? He's getting paid 2. :confused: Signing Bush has nothing to do with the Bears thinking he can carry the load or keep up with Forte's production either.
He's considering the signing bonus "investing 7mil". Technically from the McCaskey money standpoint, yes, they are giving him a 9 mil or so check this year. From a cap perspective he is counting about 3.75mil against our cap this year.
Yes, I am taking the amount Bush is getting paid in 2012. I still question why Bush signed with the Bears, when he wanted a chance at a starting role. Did his situation improve over what he had in Oakland? I don't think so. DMC is often injured. Unless the Bears gave Bush the impression that he could get more playing time if Forte held out. What possible reason could there have been for Bush to sign with the Bears? Again, I am just reading between the lines.Why is everyone complaining about my logical stance on Forte, strictly from a money situation? The minute I mentioned letting him hold out and drafting a RB with the 2nd round pick, you guys said it was cheap and low class. At least I explained why I understood the Bears side of things if Forte was asking for any more than $8 mil a year. I also explained why signing Bush at cost of over $7 mil a year has to have some effect on how much they want to pay Forte. There is only so much cap space to go around, and only so much allocated to each position. I'm all ears if someone can explain to me how the Bears can make Forte happy (if he's asking $9+ mil) and fill other areas. I could argue that Forte may have been the reason that the Bears haven't spent a lot in Free Agency. They know it's going to be expensive to keep Forte on the roster. So, with that, Forte's potential high salary, could already be having a negative effect on the team. I know it's hard for fans to separate emotion from business. But, at a certain point, it has to be about business.
 
I also explained why signing Bush at cost of over $7 mil a year has to have some effect on how much they want to pay Forte.
You keep conflating total salary with hit against the cap- the cap hit is the only thing that matters.
 
The cap hit this season is 2 million.
Why only 2? Doesn't it need to be his prorated signing bonus plus yearly salary?My math was figuring 1.75mil from his bonus (1/4 of the total 7 mil) and then i was high siding his yearly salary number to 2 mil since i haven't see any specific yearly breakdown.
 
How can anyone expect him to take less than Lynch?
So if Lynch got paid a billion dollars, Forte should expect a billion +1? Why should the Bears allow another teams terrible salary management affect their own? You don't give a contract for a guy based on what he's done, you offer it to him based on what you expect him to do and what the market value of that means. The Bears are right not to overpay a running back in today's NFL. When was the last time a team with a top paid RB won a superbowl? Ahmad Bradshaw is making 4.5 million this year and Jacobs walked to play backup on another team (maybe). Green Bay doesn't even really have a RB1, their fullback is their top paid back. The Saints pay 4 running backs, not one. Do the Steelers or the Colts or the Patriots pay top dollar for a RB? Nuh uh. Those 6 teams account for 13 out of 18 Superbowl appearances in the last 9 seasons.Now lets look at the teams with the six highest paid backs- Minnesota, Oakland, Tennessee, Houston, Carolina, Seattle...Now which list do you figure knows what the hell its doing?
The other thing to consider is that the RB position has really been devalued. Teams are moving to multiple backs sharing the load. Adding Bush is a way to lessen the load on Forte. It really makes no sense to sign a big money, long term contract with Forte. I think that signing him to a Gore type contract makes sense. But if he is asking for Deangelo Williams type of money, or AP money, it doesn't make any sense. A big part of the problem here is we don't know what the Bears are offering and what Forte is asking. If he is reasonable about his expectations then this is on the Bears. If he is asking for too much, then it is on him. But the days where you signed a workhorse back and counted on him for 350 carries a year are largely gone. The value of RBs around the league reflects that.
Not true at all. Look at the two big backs that were free agents this year, Lynch and Foster. Both got big deals, and I bet Ray Rice gets a big deal from Baltimore when they figure it out.
Some players will get big deals, but if you look at the larger picture, teams are looking to spread the load. In 2011 there were two backs that got 300 carries, MJD and Michael Turner. MJD got 343 carries, while Turner got 301. In 2001, ten year ago, there were 10 backs who got 300 carries. Those are:1 Stephen Davis WAS RB 356 22.2 1,432 2 Corey Dillon CIN HB 340 21.2 1,315 3 LaDainian Tomlinson SD RB 339 21.2 1,236 4 Curtis Martin NYJ RB 333 20.8 1,513 5 Priest Holmes KC RB 327 20.4 1,555 6 Eddie George TEN RB 315 19.7 939 7 Lamar Smith MIA HB 313 19.6 968 7 Ricky Williams NO RB 313 19.6 1,245 9 Shaun Alexander SEA RB 309 19.3 1,318 10 Ahman Green GB RB 304 19.0 1,387 Another thing that points to how RBs are utilized differently is if you look at carry leaders over the last fifteen years. Here are those:2011 Maurice Jones-Drew (26) 343 JAX2010 Michael Turner (28) 334 ATL2009 Chris Johnson (24) 358 TEN2008 Michael Turner (26) 376 ATL2007 Clinton Portis (26) 325 WAS2006 Larry Johnson (27) 416 KAN2005 Shaun Alexander (28) 370 SEA2004 Curtis Martin+ (31) 371 NYJ2003 Ricky Williams (26) 392 MIA2002 Ricky Williams (25) 383 MIA2001 Stephen Davis (27) 356 WAS2000 Eddie George (27) 403 TEN1999 Edgerrin James (21) 369 IND1998 Jamal Anderson (26) 410 ATL1997 Jerome Bettis (25) 375 PITAs you can see the leader in number of carries has been going down, particularly in the last five years. In the last five years the carries leader has been below 350 carries three of the five years. In the prior ten years that never happened. As a matter of fact the leader was over 400 three times. I think teams have realized that overloading one guy shortens his career. Larry Johnson had 416 carries in 2006, and never gained over a thousand yards again. Eddie George had a minimum of 1294 yards in the four years before he had 403 carries in 2000. He never gained that many yards again. Jamal Anderson had one productive year after the 410 carries in 1998 and that was it. This has morphed in to a passing league. Teams are looking to find more versatile backs, and trying to limit their carries by sharing the load. The Patriots utilize a group of situational backs. If one guy goes down they plug in someone else. A lot of teams, like the Giants, are rotating two backs, or at least did last year. San Diego was using both Matthews and Tolbert. Even Houston used a lot of Ben Tate, even when Foster was healthy. There are still teams that have a workhorse back, like SF, St Louis, and Minn, but it isn't as prevalent as it was ten years ago, and more teams are trying to use multiple backs in the backfield. For the most part the role of the running back has changed, and what teams expect from their running backs has changed too.
The league is morphing into a passing league. But, you will still need a RB. And, what better to have at the RB position than a dual threat back like Forte?
The question isn't necessarily that Forte isn't valuable. The question is, how valuable? What the Panthers and the Seahawks paid for Lynch and Williams was stupid money for those players. The Panthers compounded it by signing Tolbert and not trading Stewart. Now the Panthers have a huge amount of money tied up in RBs. They will lose Stewart after this season for no compensation. That is just dumb, particularly when they have so many holes everywhere else. So emulating the Panthers or the Seahawks, and overpaying for Forte does not make sense to me. I think offering Forte what the Seahawks paid Lynch is a good offer. That is way too much money for Lynch, but it is what I would offer Forte. At most I would offer a little closer to the D Williams contract. Forte has had four years of 1000 yards or more in production. Here are the backs who have exceeded four years of 1000 total yards, and how many years they did it in the ten years prior to Forte being drafted in 2008.Michael Pittman 5 1000 total yard seasonsAhman Green 6 Fred Taylor 7 Ricky Williams 6Edgerin James 8Shaun Alexander 5Thomas Jones 7Jamal Lewis 8LT 9Brian Westbrook 5Portis 6McGahee 5Steven Jackson 7Gore 5MJD 6Obviously Jackson should have more opportunity to add to his stats, as should MJD and Gore. But I think it is realistic to expect at most three more good seasons out of Forte. To sign a long term contract, like the Vikings did is probably not smart. Of course, that depends on how it is structured. I would try to sign Forte to a $40 million contract over five years, guaranteeing maybe $18. And expect to get three, maybe four years out of him. Getting seven productive years out of a RB is a lot. I'd say the most to realistically expect is six. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
 
The cap hit this season is 2 million.
Why only 2? Doesn't it need to be his prorated signing bonus plus yearly salary?My math was figuring 1.75mil from his bonus (1/4 of the total 7 mil) and then i was high siding his yearly salary number to 2 mil since i haven't see any specific yearly breakdown.
His signing bonus is 4M over 4 years, so thats 1M this season plus his base salary this year is 950k plus a 50k bonus, so 2 million. Next year it jumps to 3.5, than 3.8, than 4.6 (its unlikely he plays under that contract by then). Lynch's cap hit is 5.5M this year, 8.5M in 2013, 7.0 in 2014, and 9M in 2015 and Forte wants more than that. If he's looking for MJD money thats 8M+ a year against the cap for at least 4 years. The Bears would be nuts to do that. If Forte loses a step they are on the hook for between 6 and 9 million against the cap no matter what happens. Thats potentially a franchise wrecker. For that kind of money you could have taken a run at one of these quality tackles that resigned. I'd rather see Michael Bush and Jay Cutler playing behind Jared Gaither for four years than Forte and Cutler playing behind Jamarcus Webb for as long as they can remain upright.
 
I'm completely with you on signing an OT, but I don't think it's related to the signing of Forte. They have the cap room now to sign an OL, yet they haven't done it. Signing Forte to a long-term deal would actually save money under the cap this season. At this point, I'd say it's pretty safe to say they never had any intentions of signing an offensive lineman. They haven't even been mentioned as interested in any of the OL guys. It's a sad truth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think "franchise wrecking" is a little extreme. If he slows down a little during that time, it's not the biggest disaster ever. It's the chance you take with any long-term deal. It's easily worth the risk IMO. I have no idea what he wants or what the Bears have offered, though. I actually think a deal will get done eventually, but not for a while. Neither side will give in for a while.

 
Let me clear up why I am saying Bush is getting paid over $7 mil. That is his guaranteed money, it's gone. Again, I am looking at this thing strictly from a business angle. Even though things are spread out over multiple years, teams need to be careful on how they structure contracts. (just ask the Cowboys and Redskins. Or look at the cuts that the Texans and Steelers have had to make)

Even though the cap numbers may fall in line this year. You would need to look at the cap situation 2,3, and 4 years down the road to understand how each players contract will have ramifications on the teams ability to sign future Free Agents and Rookies.

Is Bush likely to play out his entire 4 year contract? I doubt it. If he plays 2 years, he got a good chunk of his money up front. From a business standpoint, you can't invest too much in one position at the detriment of other areas. Because of the signing of Bush, there is an unknown dollar amount that the Bears are going to want to invest on Forte this year. What is that number? I believe it is between $7.5-$8 mil. Why else would they franchise him? If they didn't think he is worth at least the franchise money. This is why I have a feeling the Bears signed Bush. They know the number that Forte wants and that number doesn't fit on the balance sheet for what they want to invest in Forte.

So, why hasn't Forte signed a deal? Because he also has an unknown number that he wants. What is that number? Nobody knows, but I have a feeling it is more than most teams would pay.

 
Bush's contract is basically $3.5M per year for 2-4 years. In other words, it's roughly a 4-year contract for $3.5M/year, with the first two years guaranteed. They can keep him for 4 years for $14M, or if they let go of him early he could end up getting about $10.5M for 3 years, about $7M for 2 years, or about $7M for 1 year.

Those numbers aren't exact - I believe the exact numbers are:

Code:
1 yr	6.45M	6.45/yr2 yr	7.55M	3.78/yr3 yr	10.4M	3.47/yr4 yr	14.0M	3.50/yr
The least they can pay him per year is $3.47M/yr, so if you want to describe the contract in one number that's the best one to pick. He'll get about $3.5M/yr if they keep him for anywhere from 2-4 years, so that's a slightly more detailed way to describe it. Or, if you want a fuller picture, I think the best way to describe a contract is with a chart like this one.
 
Projecting the draft: Chicago Bears

By Jeff Reynolds | NFLDraftScout.com

The Bears have a new general manager in Phil Emery, a new offense headed by Mike Tice and a familiar set of needs.

Emery, an understudy of late Bears and Packers front office man Mark Hatley with strong ties to Scott Pioli, gave the Bears a head start in March, acquiring a No. 1 receiver in Brandon Marshall for a team that last had a 1,000-yard receiver in 2003 (Marty Booker). The Bears also signed Michael Bush, a strong 1A option behind disgruntled franchised running back Matt Forte but struck out in the market for a difference-making pass rusher.

The Bears continued to make the rounds to get close-up looks at receivers in the weeks that followed with coach Lovie Smith present for the pro day workouts of Michael Floyd (Notre Dame), Kendall Wright (Baylor) and Stephen Hill (Georgia Tech).

But their heart is set on getting line help, too, and with the 19th overall pick, should have a chance to land an NFL ready receiver or pass rusher depending on how the top of the draft plays out.

Five picks Phil Emery should contemplate:

WR Michael Floyd, Notre Dame (NFLDraftScout.com overall ranking: 10)

Floyd's measurables and workout numbers speak for themselves, but it could be his interviews with teams that is ultimately driving his market entering the draft. Floyd's off-field transgressions are well-documented, be he's been extremely accountable, contrite and sounds like his past is in the past. The Bears acquired another receiver with a history of off-field headlines, Brandon Marshall, in March but Floyd would be a dandy find in the first round. Consider he's been praised as a top blocker by several position coaches, icing on the cake after Floyd displayed sub-4.5 speed and excellent route running to go with a big body, massive mitts and a high competitive grade. The Bears wouldn't ask him to carry the offense, but they're interested in seeing what Jay Cutler might produce after going from working without a No. 1 to having a pair of lead receivers.

DE Chandler Jones, Syracuse, NFLDraftScout.com ranking: 37

The Bears haven't been shy about their affinity for Jones, but he's one of the fastest-rising prospects in the draft. Largely unnoticed early in the draft process, athletic testing sent scouts back to find out if Jones, 6-5, 266, was more than a workout warrior.

His 35-inch vertical, 120-inch broad jump and eyebrow-raising results in the three-cone drill (7.07) and short shuttle (4.38) highlight his explosiveness, ability to change direction at close to full speed and lateral agility. On paper -- add his 35 1/2-inch arm length -- he's nearly from the mold of the perfect pass-rushing prototype. The buzz isn't going away. Not only are their whispers Jones has climbed into the first round, he could be drafted in the middle of the first round. If he's there at 19, bet on Jones being one of the player the Bears deliberate.

DT Mike Martin, Michigan, NFLDraftScout.com overall ranking: 79

There might not be enough superlatives in Rod Marinelli's vocabulary for the overachieving Martin. He's built low to the ground, wins with his hands, balance and body control and keeps pushing when stalemated off the snap. It's Martin's stocky build, extremely short arms and inability to stand up against tandem blocks that will push him out of the top 60 picks. Marinelli and coach Lovie Smith might not be wowed by his measurable, but his hustle, versatility and can-do attitude back his lunchpail effort at the Senior Bowl to stamp Martin as a third-round consideration. He won't be asked to handle multiple gaps in the Bears' penetrating four-man line and rarely would see a double team with Julius Peppers and presumably another threat added via the draft working off the edges.

TE Michael Egnew, Missouri, NFLDraftScout.com ranking: 116

Smith has repeated it ad nauseam -- Kellen Davis is a player -- and Tice's offense in Minnesota often accentuated the tight end (Jim Kleinsasser, Jermaine Wiggins) in the red zone. Davis, at 6-7, was a full-time starter last season. Not limited athletically, he's also not a game breaker. He'll get looks in the red zone -- five of his 18 receptions last season were touchdowns -- and can block in the running game. But Egnew, an overgrown receiver, has the straight-line speed (4.54 40 at the Combine) and soft hands to demand attention, if not help dictate coverage downfield. Jay Cutler's input can help sway the decision to add another athlete. His most productive seasons in Denver with Marshall also featured Tony Scheffler as a No. 2 option (49 receptions, five touchdowns in Cutler's first season as a fulltime starter).

No tight end in the class was more productive in his career than Egnew and he's added 16 pounds since his junior year that, if he can maintain the weight, give him more legitimate NFL size. The Bears will have to rate Egnew's toughness and competitiveness more highly than they did jettisoned softy Greg Olsen. One aspect that might deter Tice -- Egnew will offer next to nothing as an inline blocker coming out of Missouri's spread system in which he operated as an extra receiver off the line of scrimmage. But whether Smith believes it or not, that's what Davis is for.

ILB Tank Carder, TCU, NFLDraftScout.com overall ranking: 151

Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs are on the wrong side of 30. Carter, 6-2, 238, showed better agility than scouts expected at the Scouting Combine and carries his weight well enough to be used outside -- witness three career interception returns for touchdowns. He was a middle linebacker for the Horned Frogs as a two-time Mountain West defensive player of the year. Like Briggs, who measured 6-1, 242 coming out of Arizona in 2003 and ran a 4.75 40-yard dash and was a third-round pick (68th), Carder's instincts and football intelligence get him to the ball quickly. As a rookie, Carder could be a valuable swing backup and begin the grooming process to eventually take over for Urlacher or Briggs. Carder's best pro comparison might be former Tampa Bay Buccaneers tackle machine Barrett Ruud (Seahawks), who had four straight seasons with 110-plus tackles in Tampa's cover-two before an injury-plagued 2011 in Tennessee.
I don't think that Floyd will still be available when the Bears pick is on the clock.

 
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
 
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
 
Sounds like we will be opening against Luck and the Colts.
A very winnable game to start the year. I'm happy with that.
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
Interesting. I'm typically not a fan of drafting the one year wonder types though. The small sample size scares me a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
6 easy games:

2 vs Minn

vs St. Louis

@ Jacksonville

@ Cardinals

vs IND

3 average games:

@ Tennessee

vs Carolina

vs Seattle

7 hard games:

2 vs GB

2 vs DET

@ DAL

vs HOU

@SF

The Bears need to win the easy games, 2 of 3 out of the average group, and split our hard games. That gives Chicago 11.5 wins.

 
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
90% smokescreen at this point.
 
6 easy games:2 vs Minnvs St. Louis@ Jacksonville@ Cardinalsvs IND3 average games:@ Tennesseevs Carolinavs Seattle7 hard games:2 vs GB2 vs DET@ DALvs HOU@SFThe Bears need to win the easy games, 2 of 3 out of the average group, and split our hard games. That gives Chicago 11.5 wins.
Good posting - but I would slide Dallas into the "average" games slot - they were 8-8 last season and very middle of the road in terms of offense and defense. Besides, that'd make 6-4-6...much more mathmatically pleasing. ;)
 
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
90% smokescreen at this point.
Gun to your head, who is the pick?
 
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
90% smokescreen at this point.
Gun to your head, who is the pick?
David DeCastro
 
6 easy games:

2 vs Minn

vs St. Louis

@ Jacksonville

@ Cardinals

vs IND

3 average games:

@ Tennessee

vs Carolina

vs Seattle

7 hard games:

2 vs GB

2 vs DET

@ DAL

vs HOU

@SF

The Bears need to win the easy games, 2 of 3 out of the average group, and split our hard games. That gives Chicago 11.5 wins.
Good posting - but I would slide Dallas into the "average" games slot - they were 8-8 last season and very middle of the road in terms of offense and defense. Besides, that'd make 6-4-6...much more mathmatically pleasing. ;)
Agreed.For me, this puts us at 4 'easy' games out of division, 4 average games and 2 tough games. I'm happy with what we got assigned outside of the NFC North.

 
'mlball77 said:
(Rotoworld) SI.com draft analyst Tony Pauline "hears" that the Bears will select LSU DT Michael Brockers if he's available with the No. 19 pick.Analysis: Pauline also passes along word that Illinois DE Whitney Mercilus "has been ranked high" on the Bears' draft board, and could be the 19th pick if Brockers goes in the top 18. Pauline reports that Chicago's draft strategy is "more likely" to involve drafting a defensive lineman in the first round, and waiting for receivers in frames two or three. They were previously linked to Baylor WR Kendall Wright. The approach would be sensible in a wideout-rich draft.
Any thoughts on these two DL? -While I can't speak too much on them specifically, I do like hearing we might be addressing the D-Line early. I think taking a WR outside of Rd 1 probably makes sense for this team.
Surprising to see Brockers there. Does not fit the mold of our usual DT picks under Lovie. He is more of a run stuffer, which would be fine with me.Mercilus led the nation in sacks and is who I think the pick will be.Both are one yr wonders.
90% smokescreen at this point.
Gun to your head, who is the pick?
David DeCastro
I wish
 
O-line depth added.

(Rotoworld) Bears agreed to terms with OG Chilo Rachal, formerly of the 49ers, on a one-year contract.Analysis: The 2008 second-rounder is a worthwhile reclamation project. Rachal lost his starting job early last season after emerging as a quality run blocker in 2010. He should give veteran RG Chris Spencer a run for the starting job in Chicago.
 
O-line depth added.

(Rotoworld) Bears agreed to terms with OG Chilo Rachal, formerly of the 49ers, on a one-year contract.Analysis: The 2008 second-rounder is a worthwhile reclamation project. Rachal lost his starting job early last season after emerging as a quality run blocker in 2010. He should give veteran RG Chris Spencer a run for the starting job in Chicago.
I liked him coming out of USC, wonder what happened.
 
Upon further review he has 38 career starts in the NFL, but got demoted prior to last season...which is why he moved on.

Big body=what Mike Tice prefers

Could this signal a change for Chris Williams back to LT?

LT-Chris Williams

LG-Webb/Louis

C-Garza

RG-Rachal

RT-Carimi

I'd still draft DeCastro in round 1.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top