Downgrade Forte? (1 Viewer)

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Meh... I'm damn near a lock for playoffs so I'm sitting on him. Matthews is back this week or next so i'll be damned if I'm going to fire-sale a playoff contributor.

After one week, you're already a lock for the playoffs?That must be a good feeling.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm thinking of offering Donald Brown for him and maybe throwing in tony gonzalez since he's weak at TE (I have witten). I can't decide if that's too much or too little.

That was my offer as well, plus some WR change.

Annnnndddd Rejected.

 

[FarEastKilla]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face. To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold upMay 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim.

 

[dare02]

I'm thinking of offering Donald Brown for him and maybe throwing in tony gonzalez since he's weak at TE (I have witten). I can't decide if that's too much or too little.

That was my offer as well, plus some WR change.

Annnnndddd Rejected.

I think I have a decent chance... he's got arian foster, matt forte, and wait for it, lance ball and danny woodhead as his rbs.

 

[ponchsox]

I'm thinking of offering Donald Brown for him and maybe throwing in tony gonzalez since he's weak at TE (I have witten). I can't decide if that's too much or too little.

That throw in really sweetens the deal.

 

[zandbak]

You guys do know that we don't even officially know the extent of Forte's injury and how long he'll be out, right? Who would trade him without knowing that?

 

[Vrana]

I was thinking about offering Ridley, but judging from this thread that is way too much.

 

[Kenny Powers]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

 

[footballnerd]

based on the trade offers I'm seeing here I was looking for the news article that said Forte was out 8-12 weeks.

 

[ponchsox]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?

Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

Good luck with that one

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

based on the trade offers I'm seeing here I was looking for the news article that said Forte was out 8-12 weeks.

Kind of depends on the waiver wire and the league?I mean if another owner is looking at starting Moreno or Ball or Mark Ingram or Shane Droughns for the next 4 weeks, shouldn't they maybe give a little? Four weeks with next to nothing at one RB slot yields what kind of W-L record?

 

[ponchsox]

based on the trade offers I'm seeing here I was looking for the news article that said Forte was out 8-12 weeks.

Kind of depends on the waiver wire and the league?I mean if another owner is looking at starting Moreno or Ball or Mark Ingram or Shane Droughns for the next 4 weeks, shouldn't they maybe give a little? Four weeks with next to nothing at one RB slot yields what kind of W-L record?

Ingram might not be a terrible play, at least he has a chance to score a TD.

 

[footballnerd]

based on the trade offers I'm seeing here I was looking for the news article that said Forte was out 8-12 weeks.

Kind of depends on the waiver wire and the league?I mean if another owner is looking at starting Moreno or Ball or Mark Ingram or Shane Droughns for the next 4 weeks, shouldn't they maybe give a little? Four weeks with next to nothing at one RB slot yields what kind of W-L record?

maybe, I for one make sure I have at least one back up rb if I don't land the handcuff.

 

[Jack White]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

McGahee and LaFell for Forte?Matt Forte?Sure.

 

[shnikies]

I think the thread title should be updated because I'm pretty sure he's worth a downgrade now.

 

[CrazyFox]

So there's 10 days until the next game. Also noticed that the Bears have a bye on week 6. Week 7 is a Monday night game.

So it's possible maybe he misses the next three games and comes back after the bye?

That would give him about 5 1/2 weeks to recover

 

[Furious Styles]

I think the question mark is not how quickly he comes back but if the issue lingers throughout the season. I own Bush and plan on holding him and playing him as my flex starter. However, if I owned Forte I would want him to take his time returning so as to maximize his performance for the second half of the year. If you own Forte and can't make it through 4+ weeks of not having him then you team isn't good enough to contend.

 

[atcdav]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

Need to get to the playoffs before u win them, Mcahee is a lot for a guy about to miss the next 1/3 of the season, is he your RB3? RB4? wouldnt do it it mcGahee is RB2 for you

 

[Jack White]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

Need to get to the playoffs before u win them, Mcahee is a lot for a guy about to miss the next 1/3 of the season, is he your RB3? RB4? wouldnt do it it mcGahee is RB2 for you

McGahee is 31 years old. His workhorse days are behind him. He doesn't catch passes and plays in Peyton's offense now.I don't think he's worth much to fantasy owners.

 

[Jack White]

I think the question mark is not how quickly he comes back but if the issue lingers throughout the season. I own Bush and plan on holding him and playing him as my flex starter. However, if I owned Forte I would want him to take his time returning so as to maximize his performance for the second half of the year. If you own Forte and can't make it through 4+ weeks of not having him then you team isn't good enough to contend.

Great point.The Forte loss hurts, but if you draft for value and depth, you should be OK for a month.

 

[ponchsox]

I would rather suck it up with a bench RB for 5 weeks instead of giving Forte away for nothing.

 

[Jack White]

I would rather suck it up with a bench RB for 5 weeks instead of giving Forte away for nothing.

Exactly.It's not a season-ending injury. When he returns--assuming he's 100% or close--he'll be there for the playoff push and the playoffs.

 

[CrazyFox]

I think the question mark is not how quickly he comes back but if the issue lingers throughout the season. I own Bush and plan on holding him and playing him as my flex starter. However, if I owned Forte I would want him to take his time returning so as to maximize his performance for the second half of the year. If you own Forte and can't make it through 4+ weeks of not having him then you team isn't good enough to contend.

Great point.The Forte loss hurts, but if you draft for value and depth, you should be OK for a month.

If you look around your league and feel like you are somewhere in the middle with a chance to maybe just make or just miss the playoffs, then having a guy like Forte miss 4 + weeks would not be acceptable. It depends on your situation. If you have good depth then by all means don't panic. If you don't, might be wise to start shopping around...but not before getting a little more info on what they think the time frame will be.

 

[Bayhawks]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

 

[Nucker101]

I would rather suck it up with a bench RB for 5 weeks instead of giving Forte away for nothing.

You could probably get a lot more than nothing. I think he will be available in leagues next where his owner is 0-2 and needs help now in order to make the playoffs. This is assuming of course that you didn't handcuff him.

 

[DoubleG]

I was thinking about offering Ridley, but judging from this thread that is way too much.

You realize most of the people in this thread are tossing out names of trades that they are offering - not that have been accepted, right?I haven't seen a Forte owner yet who has accepted a trade for anywhere near the value of some of the shlubs that are being tossed out in this thread.

 

[FarEastKilla]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Please do not EDIT my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far. The mention of knees were merely a factual reference dating back to his college career. Bears' concern of Forte's injury risk is valid, not just a ploy of "negotiations tactic" as you claim, especially after week 2. Hence they signed Bush with a HEAVY front load contract of $4million signing bonus. Weather his injury is knees or ankle is semantics, it doesn't changed the the fact his out for weeks to come due to an injury and Bears signed bush due to Forte's injury concern. I would like to remind everyone my original statement, and it still stands,"Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim."

 

[Jack White]

I was thinking about offering Ridley, but judging from this thread that is way too much.

You realize most of the people in this thread are tossing out names of trades that they are offering - not that have been accepted, right?I haven't seen a Forte owner yet who has accepted a trade for anywhere near the value of some of the shlubs that are being tossed out in this thread.

You're right.No reason to panic.

No one has tried to buy low on Forte with me.

Though I did have an owner offer me McGahee for either Stevie or Cobb.

 

[Jack White]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Please do not take my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far. The mention of knees were merely a reference dating back to his college career. Bears' concern of Forte's injury risk is valid, not just a ploy of "negotiations tactic" as you claim. Hence they signed Bush with a HEAVY front load contract of $4million signing bonus. I would like to remind everyone my original statement, and it still stands,"Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim."

The Bears added Bush because:**He was available

**He's a good player

**Every team needs depth

Not because of any Forte injury concerns.

You're all wet on this one, pal.

 

[FarEastKilla]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Please do not take my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far. The mention of knees were merely a reference dating back to his college career. Bears' concern of Forte's injury risk is valid, not just a ploy of "negotiations tactic" as you claim. Hence they signed Bush with a HEAVY front load contract of $4million signing bonus. I would like to remind everyone my original statement, and it still stands,"Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim."

The Bears added Bush because:**He was available

**He's a good player

**Every team needs depth

Not because of any Forte injury concerns.

You're all wet on this one, pal.

you are right, because every team offers a $4million signing bonus for depth. p.s.

Steve Slaton want you to be the Bear's GM.

Where is his $4mil?

 

[Jack White]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Please do not take my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far. The mention of knees were merely a reference dating back to his college career. Bears' concern of Forte's injury risk is valid, not just a ploy of "negotiations tactic" as you claim. Hence they signed Bush with a HEAVY front load contract of $4million signing bonus. I would like to remind everyone my original statement, and it still stands,"Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim."

The Bears added Bush because:**He was available

**He's a good player

**Every team needs depth

Not because of any Forte injury concerns.

You're all wet on this one, pal.

you are right, because every team offers a $4million signing bonus for depth. p.s.

Steve Slaton want you to be the Bear's GM.

Where is his $4mil?

How much did they pay Chester Taylor and Marion Barber?

 

[Jack White]

That's why Bears paid Bush a $4million signing bonus, always follow the money.

Okay, I'm following the money. The Bears paid Forte $17 million guaranteed. Where, exactly, was I supposed to be following this money to? The implication that the Bears paid Bush because they expected Forte to get hurt is ludicrous. This isn't a RB like Best who has a history of concussions, or a guy coming off of a major ACL injury like Jamaal Charles or Peterson. A sprained ankle (whether it be a HAS or "normal" sprain) is one of the dangers that ALL NFL RBs face.

To suggest that "following the money" the Bears paid Bush indicates they knew/suspected Forte would sustain a HAS in week 2 is insane.

Forte's longevity a factor in contract talksBears concerned how 26-year-old running back's knees will hold up

May 26, 2012|David Haugh's In the Wake of the News

Serious questiono you understand the concepts of posturing during contract negotiations? Perhaps about players and management "negotiating through the media?" Because that is what this was.

The Bears were putting this out there for several reasons:

1-In case they didn't get a contract worked out with Forte, they would have an "out" with regards to their fans-"we didn't pay him because his knees are shot."

2-They were trying to "drive down" Forte's value. If this "news" that Forte's knees were bad was believed by other NFL teams, then his value would be diminished. So, the idea of trying to hold out and force a trade, or sign the franchise tender for 1 year and try to become a FA would not have been as lucrative for Forte.

The fact that the Bears ultimately signed Forte to a long-term deal, with a fair amount of guaranteed money demonstrates that there "concern about his knees" was nothing more than negotiation tactics. That is pretty easy to see.

Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2.

What are you talking about? Greg Jennings had a concussion in pre-season. If the Packers had said "we're hesitant to re-sign you to a long-term contract because we're worried about your concussion history," are their concerns about his "longevity factor" proven true because he pulled his groin? Because that's the HUGE logical leap you are trying to make.

Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment.

No, it doesn't. They said they were concerned about his KNEES. Then they got him for a bargain (compared to other top RBs). Somehow their concerns were alleviated when they were able to get him at a value price. The fact that he has now injured his ANKLE has nothing to do with their negotiating tactics. You are trying to make connections that don't exist, and aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Please do not take my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far. The mention of knees were merely a reference dating back to his college career. Bears' concern of Forte's injury risk is valid, not just a ploy of "negotiations tactic" as you claim. Hence they signed Bush with a HEAVY front load contract of $4million signing bonus. I would like to remind everyone my original statement, and it still stands,"Your statement made a lot of sense before "Forte's longevity factor" concerns is indeed proven true in game 2. Now your claims of "negotiation tactics" or in actuality- Bears' claim of injury risk concerns definitely has a ring of truth in it at the moment. So what if it wasn't the knees THIS time, the end result is still missing 4-6 weeks of playing time due to an injury. Luckily Bears had the foresight to add Michael Bush for a whopping $4million signing bonus to backup their injury risk claim."

The Bears added Bush because:**He was available

**He's a good player

**Every team needs depth

Not because of any Forte injury concerns.

You're all wet on this one, pal.

you are right, because every team offers a $4million signing bonus for depth. p.s.

Steve Slaton want you to be the Bear's GM.

Where is his $4mil?

P.S. Now you're just acting like a fool.

 

[Warrior]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

Need to get to the playoffs before u win them, Mcahee is a lot for a guy about to miss the next 1/3 of the season, is he your RB3? RB4? wouldnt do it it mcGahee is RB2 for you

McGahee is 31 years old. His workhorse days are behind him. He doesn't catch passes and plays in Peyton's offense now.I don't think he's worth much to fantasy owners.

He's on the field and will churn out an un-exciting 70-80 yards and a possible TD for owners. That's probably looking pretty great to owners who don't have any depth behind Forte and won't have him for a month or two.

 

[Jack White]

So - let's say you have a solid RB2 waiting in the wings - if you trade FOR Forte, what do you think of his chances of doing damage in the playoffs?Because I might do this.

This is what Im thinking. On the 2 teams I have Bush, Id rather trade for Forte than trade off Bush. Im pretty solid all around, thinking about something like McGahee/Lafell for Forte. My other team it might be more difficult as Bush is my clear RB3 ahead of Dwyer and Tate and Im not trading Ridley for a banged up Forte.

Need to get to the playoffs before u win them, Mcahee is a lot for a guy about to miss the next 1/3 of the season, is he your RB3? RB4? wouldnt do it it mcGahee is RB2 for you

McGahee is 31 years old. His workhorse days are behind him. He doesn't catch passes and plays in Peyton's offense now.I don't think he's worth much to fantasy owners.

He's on the field and will churn out an un-exciting 70-80 yards and a possible TD for owners. That's probably looking pretty great to owners who don't have any depth behind Forte and won't have him for a month or two.

I can play a WR in place of Forte, so 6-8 points and "hoping" for a TD every third week is not going to cut it for me.

 

[FarEastKilla]

How much did they pay Chester Taylor and Marion Barber?

"Apparently either the Vikings didn't offer him as much money earlier this week when it was reported that they were still talking to him, or the lure of the contract plus a shot at a starting position, may have been too much to pass up."

http://www.examiner.com/article/chester-taylor-agrees-to-contract-with-the-bears

"the Bears signed Barber to a two-year, $5 million contract"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barber_III

 

[SameSongNDance]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

 

[footballnerd]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

Id consider doing that if we find out he's out for 4 wks. Prob the only time they would exchange straight up. This is the offer you would need to make to pry forte

 

[SameSongNDance]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

Id consider doing that if we find out he's out for 4 wks. Prob the only time they would exchange straight up. This is the offer you would need to make to pry forte

I figured as much but I wouldn't be willing to give up a dude guaranteed 20+ touches a week for Forte right now. I don't really see the point.

 

[footballnerd]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

Id consider doing that if we find out he's out for 4 wks. Prob the only time they would exchange straight up. This is the offer you would need to make to pry forte

I figured as much but I wouldn't be willing to give up a dude guaranteed 20+ touches a week for Forte right now. I don't really see the point.

Why i'd consider it, bush is prob his 3rd or 4th rb, so he has another strong rb, bush fills sjax spot with 20 carries, then you get forte locked down for second half of season. Of course would need to know how long hes out first

 

[Furious Styles]

I was considering offering SJax to the Forte owner in my league. I have Bush, Doug Martin and Rashard Jennings. That owner also has the 49ers defense so I would ask for them as well and give him Seattle. 14 team league so RB depth is tough to come by and right now I have it. Now that Bush is starting it takes away any decisions I have on my Flex Starter, prior to the Forte injury I had Bush, Cobb and Titus Young to choose from for flex. I will probably stand pat but I agree that a back like SJax is what it will take to make a deal happen.

 

[infantsam]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

 

[ponchsox]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

I doubt we will know anything until Monday. I would be curious to hear if he is walking with a bad limp or not.

 

[zandbak]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

Thread is nothing but people arguing back and forth while replying to a massive quote box, and people trying to figure out his value by asking assistant coach questions.

 

[shadyridr]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

Thread is nothing but people arguing back and forth while replying to a massive quote box, and people trying to figure out his value by asking assistant coach questions.

isnt that every thread now?

 

[doeseatplace]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

Thread is nothing but people arguing back and forth while replying to a massive quote box, and people trying to figure out his value by asking assistant coach questions.

isnt that every thread now?

BINGO

 

[Jack White]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

Id consider doing that if we find out he's out for 4 wks. Prob the only time they would exchange straight up. This is the offer you would need to make to pry forte

This is at least feasible now because of the built-in value hit to Forte's missing (presumably) at least 3 games.But if a Forte owner feels he can weather the storm, he'd rather have him than SJax for the second half.

 

[Warrior]

A dude was asking me whether or not, as a Bush owner, he should trade Sjax for Forte (he has decent depth). I said hell no.

Id consider doing that if we find out he's out for 4 wks. Prob the only time they would exchange straight up. This is the offer you would need to make to pry forte

I figured as much but I wouldn't be willing to give up a dude guaranteed 20+ touches a week for Forte right now. I don't really see the point.

Why i'd consider it, bush is prob his 3rd or 4th rb, so he has another strong rb, bush fills sjax spot with 20 carries, then you get forte locked down for second half of season. Of course would need to know how long hes out first

Forte "locked down for the second half" is far from a guaranteed stud RB. He could still be nursing that ankle for a long time, which means an even heavier RBBC with Bush.

 

[Bayhawks]

Please do not EDIT my WHOLE statement out of context. Bears injury risk concern of Forte is PROVEN thus far.

I didn't edit anything out of context. The Bears expressed no concern of INJURY. They expressed concern about his KNEES. YOU are trying to make up facts that aren't in existence.

For the record, here is the article which contains the Bears negotiating ploy, where they are throwing out a red herring about concern over his knees.

My link

Here's another one, again SPECIFICALLY mentioning his KNEES.

My second link

Please feel free to provide links to ANY article that suggests that the Bears are concerned about Forte's durability that DOES NOT specifically mentions his knees, merely mentions a propensity to injury, or (better yet) specifically mentions concerns over his ankle. I won't hold my breath, because you won't post it, because they don't exist.

Stop trying to make stuff up. The Bears signed Bush because he was available, affordable, and they realized when Forte was unavailable last year how little they had at RB behind him. They DID NOT sign him because they knew Forte was going to hurt his ankle, and no amount of following the money (as you originally suggested) would lead any logical person to that conclusion.

 

[Bayhawks]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

I doubt we will know anything until Monday. I would be curious to hear if he is walking with a bad limp or not.

We probably won't hear anything significant until early next week. He has a HAS, according to reports, but there has been no report (not that I can find, at least) about the severity of the sprain. The severity of the sprain will partially determine the length of his absence. 4-8 weeks has been thrown out, but that is a very broad, generalized timetable. Exactly how long Forte will be out depends on the severity of the HAS, his threshold for pain, how well Bush & the Bears do in Forte's absence, and the schedule. IMO, if the injury is not major, Forte owners will only have to be without him for 3 games, and he should be back for week 7 against the Lions. That is a MNF game, so that will be 5 weeks and 5 days from the injury.

 

[Jack White]

silly me - i thought there would be Forte injury update in here.....

I doubt we will know anything until Monday. I would be curious to hear if he is walking with a bad limp or not.

We probably won't hear anything significant until early next week. He has a HAS, according to reports, but there has been no report (not that I can find, at least) about the severity of the sprain. The severity of the sprain will determine the length of his absence. 4-8 weeks has been thrown out, but that is a very broad, generalized timetable. How long Forte will be out depends on the severity of the HAS, his threshold for pain, how well Bush & the Bears do in Forte's absence, and the schedule. IMO, if the injury is not major, Forte owners will only have to be without him for 3 games, and he should be back for week 7 against the Lions. That is a MNF game, so that will be 5 weeks and 5 days from the injury.

In fantasy, we expect players to miss games. This is not the end of the world.