[DYNASTY] Matt Forte (1 Viewer)

[boubucarow]

From Football Outsiders...

Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

Guess who is #31 in the league in stuffed runs? The Bears o-line allows their backs to get tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. Those do not include runs where Forte broke a tackle or two to get 2 yards on a play.

I sure you will respond by saying a more talented back would not have been tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. How many Bears games did you watch though? I would guess that on about half of their running plays, a defender has a great opportunity to make a tackle at or behind the line of scrimmage.

And like I mentioned, it seems like Forte has been nursing a leg injury and he looked better last week. If the o-line can get their act together, Forte will have a extremely good second half.

 

[boubucarow]

No, he isn't AD or MJD but I haven't seen many that say he is talent wise. With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays. Is it really that hard to understand that if you continually are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't be putting up good numbers. It is really a ridiculous assertion that Forte puts the Bears in 3rd and long situations when no running back in the league could have done much better.

Naturally, but evidence is there that no running back in the league could have done much better?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

 

[Blue-Kun]

With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays.

How about this then? S-Jax plays on a team with an arguably worse O-line and certainly not a BETTER one than any team in the league right now. He has nearly 100 more yards from scrimmage than Forte does right now. You could then argue that S-Jax has more carries, which I'd then point out that teams routinely stack the box because there is absolutely no passing game to respect from the rams. You know who does have really similar stats to Forte behind a bad run-blocking Oline? Julius Jones.So I'd say that more talented people could definitely produce better stats where Forte has been.

 

[Abrantes]

No, he isn't AD or MJD but I haven't seen many that say he is talent wise. With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays. Is it really that hard to understand that if you continually are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't be putting up good numbers. It is really a ridiculous assertion that Forte puts the Bears in 3rd and long situations when no running back in the league could have done much better.

Naturally, but evidence is there that no running back in the league could have done much better?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Just not sure how you can confidently state that better running backs wouldn't have better production behind the same line. I wasn't aware of the run-stuffing percentages, so I appreciate that, but (as Blue-Kun elaborated) Steven Jackson ran, and still runs, behind a thoroughly putrid line and has a better yard per carry average.

 

[boubucarow]

With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays.

How about this then? S-Jax plays on a team with an arguably worse O-line and certainly not a BETTER one than any team in the league right now. He has nearly 100 more yards from scrimmage than Forte does right now. You could then argue that S-Jax has more carries, which I'd then point out that teams routinely stack the box because there is absolutely no passing game to respect from the rams. You know who does have really similar stats to Forte behind a bad run-blocking Oline? Julius Jones.So I'd say that more talented people could definitely produce better stats where Forte has been.

Both the Seahawks and Rams have sub par o-lines but the Bears run blocking has been worse according to Foutball Outsiders by about .2 to .3 yards a carry. I am stating my opinion based on watched every second of the Bears so far. I can't think of many situations where a much more talented back would have turned one of the carries for a loss or minimal gain into anything different.I do think that a more explosive back could have stretched some of his 10 yard runs into longer runs. Forte at his best doesn't have the burst of a Peterson or any of the top speed backs. However, Forte has not been at his best health wise so far this year. The fact that the Bears are not splitting him out wide that much this year also points to him not being 100% yet.I think at times the discussion about Forte lacks parameters. Is he one of the top five most talented backs in the league? No. Is he so untalented that he will be replaced sooner rather than later? No. I think he is a top 10 running back in this league based on his overall ability that is more well rounded than 99% of backs.

 

[SSOG]

No, he isn't AD or MJD but I haven't seen many that say he is talent wise. With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays. Is it really that hard to understand that if you continually are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't be putting up good numbers. It is really a ridiculous assertion that Forte puts the Bears in 3rd and long situations when no running back in the league could have done much better.

Several RBs could have done better. It's not like Chicago has the worst offensive line in the league, here... yet Forte has some of the worst results in the league. And Chicago's actually got a pretty solid passing game keeping defenses honest, too.I'm not saying that Forte is a BAD back. I'm saying he's a good back, but he's not anywhere near a special back. The fact that he hasn't been able to make ANYTHING happen bears that out. He's not anywhere close to one of the 5-10 most talented players in the league, and yet he was drafted in startup dynasty drafts with one of the 5-10 best picks. You don't spend a premium pick on a non-premium talent (and you don't make excuses about supporting cast for a premium talent).

From Football Outsiders...Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).Guess who is #31 in the league in stuffed runs? The Bears o-line allows their backs to get tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. Those do not include runs where Forte broke a tackle or two to get 2 yards on a play.I sure you will respond by saying a more talented back would not have been tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. How many Bears games did you watch though? I would guess that on about half of their running plays, a defender has a great opportunity to make a tackle at or behind the line of scrimmage.And like I mentioned, it seems like Forte has been nursing a leg injury and he looked better last week. If the o-line can get their act together, Forte will have a extremely good second half.

You're cherry-picking stats. Football Outsiders' primary measurement of the quality of an offensive line isn't Stuffed%, it's OLY (which measures how many yards, on average, the offensive line is responsible for gaining on any given play). Two of the bottom five teams this year on OLY are San Francisco and Tennessee... but you don't hear Frank Gore or Chris Johnson owners whining about it. That's because those two guys are legitimate PREMIUM talents. San Francisco ranks dead last in the league in "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown", which I could use just as easily as the stuffed percentage as an indicator of how much push an offensive line is getting.Frank Gore could do better behind Chicago's line than Forte. So could Chris Johnson. So could MJD (whose O-line last year was worse than Forte's this year). So could Adrian Peterson. So could DeAngelo Williams and Steven Jackson. I'd put money on Michael Turner, Ronnie Brown, and Jonathan Stewart outperforming Forte behind that line, too. If Westy's healthy, I'd take him, too. Portis has done more with less in the past. Matt Forte is simply not an elite talent.

 

[boubucarow]

No, he isn't AD or MJD but I haven't seen many that say he is talent wise. With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays. Is it really that hard to understand that if you continually are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't be putting up good numbers. It is really a ridiculous assertion that Forte puts the Bears in 3rd and long situations when no running back in the league could have done much better.

Naturally, but evidence is there that no running back in the league could have done much better?

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Just not sure how you can confidently state that better running backs wouldn't have better production behind the same line. I wasn't aware of the run-stuffing percentages, so I appreciate that, but (as Blue-Kun elaborated) Steven Jackson ran, and still runs, behind a thoroughly putrid line and has a better yard per carry average.

I am stating that based on watching every carry of his season. Jackson IMO is one of those elite 5 backs in the league that is more talented than Forte as a pure runner. I have just seen too many players where the talent of the ball carrier would have made no difference.

 

[boubucarow]

No, he isn't AD or MJD but I haven't seen many that say he is talent wise. With that said, even those two players would have only marginally better stats right now than Forte if they were the Bears #1 back and received the same blocking on the same plays. Is it really that hard to understand that if you continually are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage, you won't be putting up good numbers. It is really a ridiculous assertion that Forte puts the Bears in 3rd and long situations when no running back in the league could have done much better.

Several RBs could have done better. It's not like Chicago has the worst offensive line in the league, here... yet Forte has some of the worst results in the league. And Chicago's actually got a pretty solid passing game keeping defenses honest, too.I'm not saying that Forte is a BAD back. I'm saying he's a good back, but he's not anywhere near a special back. The fact that he hasn't been able to make ANYTHING happen bears that out. He's not anywhere close to one of the 5-10 most talented players in the league, and yet he was drafted in startup dynasty drafts with one of the 5-10 best picks. You don't spend a premium pick on a non-premium talent (and you don't make excuses about supporting cast for a premium talent).

From Football Outsiders...Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).Guess who is #31 in the league in stuffed runs? The Bears o-line allows their backs to get tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. Those do not include runs where Forte broke a tackle or two to get 2 yards on a play.I sure you will respond by saying a more talented back would not have been tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. How many Bears games did you watch though? I would guess that on about half of their running plays, a defender has a great opportunity to make a tackle at or behind the line of scrimmage.And like I mentioned, it seems like Forte has been nursing a leg injury and he looked better last week. If the o-line can get their act together, Forte will have a extremely good second half.

You're cherry-picking stats. Football Outsiders' primary measurement of the quality of an offensive line isn't Stuffed%, it's OLY (which measures how many yards, on average, the offensive line is responsible for gaining on any given play). Two of the bottom five teams this year on OLY are San Francisco and Tennessee... but you don't hear Frank Gore or Chris Johnson owners whining about it. That's because those two guys are legitimate PREMIUM talents. San Francisco ranks dead last in the league in "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown", which I could use just as easily as the stuffed percentage as an indicator of how much push an offensive line is getting.Frank Gore could do better behind Chicago's line than Forte. So could Chris Johnson. So could MJD (whose O-line last year was worse than Forte's this year). So could Adrian Peterson. So could DeAngelo Williams and Steven Jackson. I'd put money on Michael Turner, Ronnie Brown, and Jonathan Stewart outperforming Forte behind that line, too. If Westy's healthy, I'd take him, too. Portis has done more with less in the past. Matt Forte is simply not an elite talent.

First, I haven't argued he is PREMIUM talent (AD, MJD, Jackson, Chris Johnson, DeAngelo, healthy Westy). Second, I am arguing with your accusation that Forte is the reason they are in 3rd and long. If that is his fault, you are saying he is a sub par running back instead of arguing he is not an elite talent. Talent wise, where does he rank as a pure runner IYO? And as a total all around back? I see him as top 12 or so pure runner and a top 8 or so all around back.

 

[switz]

From Football Outsiders...

Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

Guess who is #31 in the league in stuffed runs? The Bears o-line allows their backs to get tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. Those do not include runs where Forte broke a tackle or two to get 2 yards on a play.

I sure you will respond by saying a more talented back would not have been tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. How many Bears games did you watch though? I would guess that on about half of their running plays, a defender has a great opportunity to make a tackle at or behind the line of scrimmage.

What you are describing there is pretty much the situation for nearly every runningback. So what you are saying is that unless Forte plays behind a dominant OL that opens huge holes, he has the inablility to make a defender miss, and therefore won't be very successful. Ok, thanks got it.

There are alot of RBs running behind similar run block OLs to Forte...

Colts

Seahawks

Falcons

Broncos

Bills

Rams

... just to name a few

 

[Knobs]

There are alot of RBs running behind similar run block OLs to Forte...ColtsSeahawksFalconsBroncosBillsRams... just to name a few

Broncos? Huh?

 

[boubucarow]

From Football Outsiders...

Stuffed: Percentage of runs where the running back is tackled at or behind the line of scrimmage. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

Guess who is #31 in the league in stuffed runs? The Bears o-line allows their backs to get tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. Those do not include runs where Forte broke a tackle or two to get 2 yards on a play.

I sure you will respond by saying a more talented back would not have been tackled behind the line of scrimmage 27% of the time. How many Bears games did you watch though? I would guess that on about half of their running plays, a defender has a great opportunity to make a tackle at or behind the line of scrimmage.

What you are describing there is pretty much the situation for nearly every runningback. So what you are saying is that unless Forte plays behind a dominant OL that opens huge holes, he has the inablility to make a defender miss, and therefore won't be very successful. Ok, thanks got it.

There are alot of RBs running behind similar run block OLs to Forte...

Colts

Seahawks

Falcons

Broncos

Bills

Rams

... just to name a few

All I am saying is that I have watched every carry. Forte has had no chance on a significant number of his carries. There is a big difference from breaking an arm tackle as you approach the line and having a DT ramming into as soon as you receive the ball. I am just trying to tell everyone what I have seen. I don't know how those others teams compare and neither do you really. Or have you recorded and watched most of the carries on each team? I don't see how many players other then Barry Sanders would have make something out of most of his carries. I have said that a more explosive back could have turned a couple of his 10 yard carries into much more but a great back would still have had multiple no or short gain carries in his situation. Again, I am saying the Forte isn't the reason they are in 3rd long a lot. That is really all I have said.

 

[Knobs]

If you don't know what SJax has to go through then you really can't say Forte has to go through something extraordinary, can you?

There are several players in the league that have issues to deal with. Watch a Rams game (really, ANY Rams game) to see what happens when an elite talent runs behind an "o-line". It's ugly yet he looks like a star. It's amazing.

Forte is nothing special. That's not a bad thing IN REAL LIFE because those kind of players can still get things done.

But IN FANTASY LEAGUES you want talent. Guys who will put up points simply because they're so incredibly talented. Forte is not one of those special talents.

Just some rb's I think are more talented than him:

SJax

ADP

MJD

Chris Johnson

DeAngelo

Stewart

Turner

Gore

Beanie

Moreno

Portis

LT

Westbrook

Felix

And those guys are just off the top of my head. I'm likely forgetting a few names. Top 15? No chance. Doesn't mean he's a lousy NFL rb. Just not a special one.

 

[SSOG]

First, I haven't argued he is PREMIUM talent (AD, MJD, Jackson, Chris Johnson, DeAngelo, healthy Westy). Second, I am arguing with your accusation that Forte is the reason they are in 3rd and long. If that is his fault, you are saying he is a sub par running back instead of arguing he is not an elite talent. Talent wise, where does he rank as a pure runner IYO? And as a total all around back? I see him as top 12 or so pure runner and a top 8 or so all around back.

I'd stated my position a couple of times in this thread. Forte's a good but not great back, and as a result wasn't worth such a high draft pick in dynasty leagues. I can say it's Forte's fault without saying he's a below-average running back. Steven Jackson would have done something with those carries. Matt Forte didn't, and that's on Forte. There's no shame in being worse than Steven Jackson, but you can't say that Forte hasn't had enough opportunity to produce, because many RBs have had less opportunity and produced more. Heck, to date Matt Forte has essentially been Steve Slaton, yet he somehow hasn't found himself subject to the same negativity that surrounds Slaton.As for your question... strictly in terms of running the ball, I would take the following RBs over Forte (in no particular order): ADP, MJD, CJ3, Gore, SJax, DeAngelo, Stewart, Turner, Ronnie Brown, Brian Westbrook, Marion Barber, and Felix Jones. And that's not counting guys who were previously better than Forte and have a chance to demonstrate they're still at that level (Portis and Tomlinson) or guys who have a better pedigree than Forte but haven't had a chance to demonstrate much at an NFL level (Wells and Moreno).

 

[boubucarow]

First, I haven't argued he is PREMIUM talent (AD, MJD, Jackson, Chris Johnson, DeAngelo, healthy Westy). Second, I am arguing with your accusation that Forte is the reason they are in 3rd and long. If that is his fault, you are saying he is a sub par running back instead of arguing he is not an elite talent. Talent wise, where does he rank as a pure runner IYO? And as a total all around back? I see him as top 12 or so pure runner and a top 8 or so all around back.

I'd stated my position a couple of times in this thread. Forte's a good but not great back, and as a result wasn't worth such a high draft pick in dynasty leagues. I can say it's Forte's fault without saying he's a below-average running back. Steven Jackson would have done something with those carries. Matt Forte didn't, and that's on Forte. There's no shame in being worse than Steven Jackson, but you can't say that Forte hasn't had enough opportunity to produce, because many RBs have had less opportunity and produced more. Heck, to date Matt Forte has essentially been Steve Slaton, yet he somehow hasn't found himself subject to the same negativity that surrounds Slaton.As for your question... strictly in terms of running the ball, I would take the following RBs over Forte (in no particular order): ADP, MJD, CJ3, Gore, SJax, DeAngelo, Stewart, Turner, Ronnie Brown, Brian Westbrook, Marion Barber, and Felix Jones. And that's not counting guys who were previously better than Forte and have a chance to demonstrate they're still at that level (Portis and Tomlinson) or guys who have a better pedigree than Forte but haven't had a chance to demonstrate much at an NFL level (Wells and Moreno).

We disagree on Forte's talent but I appreciate your post. I will continue to post what I see from Forte. Right now, I don't think there is any reason to worry about Forte. He should be healthy for the Falcons and this line should get better as the season progresses. Barring injury, I see a top 10 back from here on out.

 

[SSOG]

Just some rb's I think are more talented than him:SJaxADPMJDChris JohnsonDeAngeloStewartTurnerGoreBeanieMorenoPortisLTWestbrookFelixAnd those guys are just off the top of my head. I'm likely forgetting a few names. Top 15? No chance. Doesn't mean he's a lousy NFL rb. Just not a special one.

I didn't see your list before posting, but it's funny how similar our two lists are, even with the "controversial" picks like Felix and Stewart. You didn't have Ronnie (probably an oversight) or Barber (who is still an incredibly effective runner), and I wouldn't put Tomlinson or Portis up there based on what they've demonstrated this year, or Wells/Moreno up there based on what they have yet to demonstrate, but I could see all four earning their way above Forte in the next 4 weeks. Jacobs is another guy I might put above Forte, just because he can do things that other guys couldn't even dream of.With that said, I think there are a couple RBs on that list who are better runners but who I wouldn't call better talents. Felix is the most glaring (health is a talent). I'd say that Forte is a borderline top-15 runner, but he ranks higher on talent because of his durability, blocking, and receiving.

 

[Knobs]

Yeah, I forget Barber, Brown, etc. Health may be a talent, but if we're talking fantasy, I'd prefer a guy who's a stud when he's in there vs. a guy who is mediocre game in and game out. So that's why in my eyes Felix >> Forte.

 

[PahtyTom]

First, I haven't argued he is PREMIUM talent (AD, MJD, Jackson, Chris Johnson, DeAngelo, healthy Westy). Second, I am arguing with your accusation that Forte is the reason they are in 3rd and long. If that is his fault, you are saying he is a sub par running back instead of arguing he is not an elite talent. Talent wise, where does he rank as a pure runner IYO? And as a total all around back? I see him as top 12 or so pure runner and a top 8 or so all around back.

I'd stated my position a couple of times in this thread. Forte's a good but not great back, and as a result wasn't worth such a high draft pick in dynasty leagues. I can say it's Forte's fault without saying he's a below-average running back. Steven Jackson would have done something with those carries. Matt Forte didn't, and that's on Forte. There's no shame in being worse than Steven Jackson, but you can't say that Forte hasn't had enough opportunity to produce, because many RBs have had less opportunity and produced more. Heck, to date Matt Forte has essentially been Steve Slaton, yet he somehow hasn't found himself subject to the same negativity that surrounds Slaton.As for your question... strictly in terms of running the ball, I would take the following RBs over Forte (in no particular order): ADP, MJD, CJ3, Gore, SJax, DeAngelo, Stewart, Turner, Ronnie Brown, Brian Westbrook, Marion Barber, and Felix Jones. And that's not counting guys who were previously better than Forte and have a chance to demonstrate they're still at that level (Portis and Tomlinson) or guys who have a better pedigree than Forte but haven't had a chance to demonstrate much at an NFL level (Wells and Moreno).

Depends on your definition of talent. Michael Turner is a 2 down back. Felix Jones is less than that. Forte is a complete back that never has to come off the field. He excels as a blocker and in the passing game. As a runner he brings a little bit of everything to the table as he has some moves, some speed, and some power. When you put all that together, that makes a very talented RB IMO. If you want to just talk strictly about running the football, yes there are guys better.

 

[Football Jones]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

 

[Instinctive]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

Has he been listed on the injury report and I am totally unaware and missed it? Or are you simply attempting to say he must be injured because he's performing poorly, and it can't be because he just isn't good?

 

[geoff8695]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

Has he been listed on the injury report and I am totally unaware and missed it? Or are you simply attempting to say he must be injured because he's performing poorly, and it can't be because he just isn't good?

I'm confused... Is the argument that Forte isn't a top 5 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit #1 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit starting RB in terms of NFL talent, or that Forte just plain sucks and is nothing more than a 'stat compiler' due to opportunity? Someone who is NOT a Forte apologist indicated that he is about the 8th best fantasy back in their rankings earlier in this thread (maybe SSOG?), which is much different than saying "he just isn't good". However, the strong tone being used in posts like this one leads me to believe that some are arguing that Forte isn't a legit talent either as a starting RB in NFL or in fantasy.

I don't have any problem with those who want to debate whether or not Forte is a legit top 5 fantasy RB in dynasty leagues, because there are sound arguments to be made on either side and time will tell all.

That said, what are you arguing here?

 

[Football Jones]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

Has he been listed on the injury report and I am totally unaware and missed it? Or are you simply attempting to say he must be injured because he's performing poorly, and it can't be because he just isn't good?

Forte was listed as P last week, but he's playing hurt (likely the same injury he had in TC & unrelated to the P listing). It's easy to spot if you're familiar with him. That said, I have no concrete proof (other than my eye), but many other people notice it. Still, either way you look at it, Forte has done well the past 2 weeks & has scored more points each & every week. Maybe his injury is getting better, not sure.In short, the kid is a player. This will be proven (again) in time.

 

[Biabreakable]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

Has he been listed on the injury report and I am totally unaware and missed it? Or are you simply attempting to say he must be injured because he's performing poorly, and it can't be because he just isn't good?

I'm confused... Is the argument that Forte isn't a top 5 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit #1 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit starting RB in terms of NFL talent, or that Forte just plain sucks and is nothing more than a 'stat compiler' due to opportunity? Someone who is NOT a Forte apologist indicated that he is about the 8th best fantasy back in their rankings earlier in this thread (maybe SSOG?), which is much different than saying "he just isn't good". However, the strong tone being used in posts like this one leads me to believe that some are arguing that Forte isn't a legit talent either as a starting RB in NFL or in fantasy.

I don't have any problem with those who want to debate whether or not Forte is a legit top 5 fantasy RB in dynasty leagues, because there are sound arguments to be made on either side and time will tell all.

That said, what are you arguing here?

Yeah that is what I took issue with also.I don't think Forte is AD.. didnt think he was as a rookie prospect don't think he is now.

Because really? To be top 5 talent means the player could be better than Peterson at some point and has the talent to stay in the top 5 in dynasty for years to come.

Some people will say Chris Johnson is top 5 and maybe they are right. I still have not seen enough for me to have that confidence in him.

Adrian Peterson? I pretty much knew he was that good even before he came into the NFL. And it was really obvious after his rookie game in SD.

So.. no Forte is not AD.. meaning no he is not a guy I have confidence in competing for the top 5 RB slots over the next 3 years. MJD and DeAngelo Williams are. Forte is not.

But people are suggesting that Forte has been a bust this year and will continue to be and that he will lose his job soon...

That is the other end of the spectrum entirely.

That would mean Forte is no better than what Anthony Thomas was. I still have not seen enough of Forte to be confident in judging him completely but I will say with conviction that he is quite a bit better than Anthony Thomas was.

Trying to find where Forte really is? Should be valued in dynasty?

That is why people are all over the place. And really I think it is more the language.. people like to use absolutes and exagerate to strengthen the point they are trying to make.. but in the end I don't think even they think Forte is Anthony Thomas or other average talent RBs who get chances to be productive fantasy players every year. I think he is better than that.

How much better than that is something I am still uncertain of and probably wont be answered for me this year. I still have respect for what he accomplished as a rookie and what I have seen of him.

Right now putting a gun to my head I value him as a RB2. Somewhere from RB 10-18 in the league. Statisticly he is RB 36 right now. So that tells me he is a buy right now.

As I already mentioned upthread I don't like his week 14-16 match ups this year so I am not buying. But if I were in a situation that I was not playing for this year? Or it were a priority to me to get younger at RB for 2010? Then I would be buying as a long term investment. As I believe Forte will be the starting RB for the Bears in 2011 and possibly beyond that. But I don't worry about it past 3 years from now.

 

[switz]

Just some rb's I think are more talented than him:

SJax

ADP

MJD

Chris Johnson

DeAngelo

Stewart

Turner

Gore

Beanie

Moreno

Portis

LT

Westbrook

Felix

And those guys are just off the top of my head. I'm likely forgetting a few names. Top 15? No chance. Doesn't mean he's a lousy NFL rb. Just not a special one.

I didn't see your list before posting, but it's funny how similar our two lists are, even with the "controversial" picks like Felix and Stewart. You didn't have Ronnie (probably an oversight) or Barber (who is still an incredibly effective runner), and I wouldn't put Tomlinson or Portis up there based on what they've demonstrated this year, or Wells/Moreno up there based on what they have yet to demonstrate, but I could see all four earning their way above Forte in the next 4 weeks. Jacobs is another guy I might put above Forte, just because he can do things that other guys couldn't even dream of.With that said, I think there are a couple RBs on that list who are better runners but who I wouldn't call better talents. Felix is the most glaring (health is a talent). I'd say that Forte is a borderline top-15 runner, but he ranks higher on talent because of his durability, blocking, and receiving.

I would STRONGLY disagree with that statement. Every single player in the NFL, regardless of talent level and conditioning is likely to get hurt at some point. Are you really going to argue that Westbrook, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, and all the other RBs who struggles with health are not talented? That's ridiculous.

 

[switz]

There are alot of RBs running behind similar run block OLs to Forte...ColtsSeahawksFalconsBroncosBillsRams... just to name a few

Broncos? Huh?

Actually meant Browns, but if you listen to SSOG the Broncos have the worst OL in the league

 

[candymanvandyfan]

You want to root for Matt Forte. Seems like a good guy.

When I watch him play, these things stick out to me.

He doesn't start, stop or change direction fast. He doesn't bounce laterally well. He's a glider/strider who, likely because of his frame and heavy legs, takes a while to get going and takes a while to stop going that direction once he heads that way. It's really a momentum issue because MF is bigger than you think, but I think it is also a frame issue. None of this spells "makes the first guy miss." It seems like most of the plays where he has made guys miss have been after he has gotten up to speed and is changing direction slightly in the open field. I remember one against Indy. It never feels like it's based on abrupt, reactive direction changes in the first 4 yards. He gets lit up a lot.

The things I mentioned above are unlikely to get better. He's not going to take on Reggie Bush/Darren Sproles type stop and start skills because genetically that's not a gift of MF's. Fortunately for Chicago, MF has skills that those two guys don't have. Something he could do to get better would be to learn to be fierce with his off-hand, and deliver a blow. Sometimes that's hard-wiring, though, too.

He's not being used as frequently as a target in the passing game this season, which should be no surprise to anyone.

For as big as he is, he's not a punishing runner. He's not superfast. He does seem to have a good compass, though, and rarely gets dragged down trying to run backwards/sideways to create space to eventually go forward. He was probably never short-burst quick enough to ever have that work for him, so he never developed that (bad) habit. He catches that football: You have to like that. Eventually that will have more big play dividends as the Chicago receivers develop and the field can be stretched a little more. Checkdowns get more fruitful.

The run blocking from the new offensive linemen hasn't been up to par so far this year.

There are certainly backs who are better and backs who are worse. Talent-wise, I think he's probably a slightly above average starter in the league.

 

[Biabreakable]

Video from the Lions game.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-play...-vs-Bears-recap

 

[Badm]

I don't understand where this thread is heading? Forte in my league was #3 RB overall in 2008. This year, where he is supposedly playing worse, he is #9. Are those who are saying he lacks talent are stating his perfomrance is due to O-Line and play calling? Cuz thats just absurb. There have been plenty of RBs before Forte who were in similiar situations in this scheme and did not perform nearly as well. And yeah, I know Cutler has changed the O on this team this year, but Orton was QB last year where he finished #3.......

 

[SSOG]

I would STRONGLY disagree with that statement. Every single player in the NFL, regardless of talent level and conditioning is likely to get hurt at some point. Are you really going to argue that Westbrook, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, and all the other RBs who struggles with health are not talented? That's ridiculous.

Would you consider speed a talent? Speed is a purely physical attribute that measures performance of muscles and tendons and sinews and bones. Do you consider strength a talent? Strength is a purely physical attribute that measures performance of muscles and tendons and sinews and bones. If those two are considered "talents", then health has to be a talent as well. It's a purely physical attribute that measures the resistance of muscles and sinews to tearing, as well as the resistance of bones to breaking. I'm not saying that every back that has ever gotten injured is less "talented" in the health department, any more than I'm saying that every back who has ever outrun the competition to the end zone was the fastest guy on the field. There's a lot of random chance involved, as well. With that said, some human beings have a greater genetic predisposition towards injury than others. This is an inarguable scientific fact. For specific examples... Wesley Dukes definitely has weaker ligaments than the standard football player, given that he tore his ACL *THREE TIMES* (and it wasn't just a faulty repair surgery- he completely returned from each tear before tearing again). Greg Oden is going to have a higher career rate of knee injuries and cascade injuries because one leg is slightly shorter than another. Brian Westbrook and Steve McNair have both demonstrated, through sheer number of appearances on the injury report and variety of injuries, that their bodies are not as durable as the standard NFL players and are more susceptible to wear and tear. Chad Pennington's history of shoulder injuries suggests that there's some underlying concern, either with his throwing motion or with his physiological structure (I suspect that he wasn't injury prone until his first shoulder injury, which altered his mechanics or his makeup and left him injury prone).I'm not arguing that the RBs who struggled with their health are not talented. There are a lot of different NFL talents. An RB can be very talented in one aspect and not so talented in another. After looking at the complete package, an RB can be an incredible talent, even if his health isn't all the way there (exhibit A: Brian Westbrook). By the same token, a back can be incredibly talented even if he's got hands of stone (Michael Turner), yet receiving is still a "talent".

Actually meant Browns, but if you listen to SSOG the Broncos have the worst OL in the league

Yes, I would say that that's a fair and accurate description of my opinion on the subject. Seriously Switz, I don't even know what you're getting at, here. Are you trying to attack my credibility? Are you basing this off of anything, and if so, what? Can you find a single post of mine where I intimated that Denver's line was anything but a top 5 unit?

I don't understand where this thread is heading? Forte in my league was #3 RB overall in 2008. This year, where he is supposedly playing worse, he is #9. Are those who are saying he lacks talent are stating his perfomrance is due to O-Line and play calling? Cuz thats just absurb. There have been plenty of RBs before Forte who were in similiar situations in this scheme and did not perform nearly as well. And yeah, I know Cutler has changed the O on this team this year, but Orton was QB last year where he finished #3.......

Scoring system? He's 19th in standard FBGs scoring by total points, 23rd by points per game.

 

[Badm]

I would STRONGLY disagree with that statement. Every single player in the NFL, regardless of talent level and conditioning is likely to get hurt at some point. Are you really going to argue that Westbrook, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, and all the other RBs who struggles with health are not talented? That's ridiculous.

Would you consider speed a talent? Speed is a purely physical attribute that measures performance of muscles and tendons and sinews and bones. Do you consider strength a talent? Strength is a purely physical attribute that measures performance of muscles and tendons and sinews and bones. If those two are considered "talents", then health has to be a talent as well. It's a purely physical attribute that measures the resistance of muscles and sinews to tearing, as well as the resistance of bones to breaking. I'm not saying that every back that has ever gotten injured is less "talented" in the health department, any more than I'm saying that every back who has ever outrun the competition to the end zone was the fastest guy on the field. There's a lot of random chance involved, as well. With that said, some human beings have a greater genetic predisposition towards injury than others. This is an inarguable scientific fact. For specific examples... Wesley Dukes definitely has weaker ligaments than the standard football player, given that he tore his ACL *THREE TIMES* (and it wasn't just a faulty repair surgery- he completely returned from each tear before tearing again). Greg Oden is going to have a higher career rate of knee injuries and cascade injuries because one leg is slightly shorter than another. Brian Westbrook and Steve McNair have both demonstrated, through sheer number of appearances on the injury report and variety of injuries, that their bodies are not as durable as the standard NFL players and are more susceptible to wear and tear. Chad Pennington's history of shoulder injuries suggests that there's some underlying concern, either with his throwing motion or with his physiological structure (I suspect that he wasn't injury prone until his first shoulder injury, which altered his mechanics or his makeup and left him injury prone).I'm not arguing that the RBs who struggled with their health are not talented. There are a lot of different NFL talents. An RB can be very talented in one aspect and not so talented in another. After looking at the complete package, an RB can be an incredible talent, even if his health isn't all the way there (exhibit A: Brian Westbrook). By the same token, a back can be incredibly talented even if he's got hands of stone (Michael Turner), yet receiving is still a "talent".

Actually meant Browns, but if you listen to SSOG the Broncos have the worst OL in the league

Yes, I would say that that's a fair and accurate description of my opinion on the subject. :( Seriously Switz, I don't even know what you're getting at, here. Are you trying to attack my credibility? Are you basing this off of anything, and if so, what? Can you find a single post of mine where I intimated that Denver's line was anything but a top 5 unit?

I don't understand where this thread is heading? Forte in my league was #3 RB overall in 2008. This year, where he is supposedly playing worse, he is #9. Are those who are saying he lacks talent are stating his perfomrance is due to O-Line and play calling? Cuz thats just absurb. There have been plenty of RBs before Forte who were in similiar situations in this scheme and did not perform nearly as well. And yeah, I know Cutler has changed the O on this team this year, but Orton was QB last year where he finished #3.......

Scoring system? He's 19th in standard FBGs scoring by total points, 23rd by points per game.

1pt per carry1ppr

1 pt 10 yards rushing

1pt 10 yards rece

6pts td

Scoring system shows good durable RBs......

 

[SSOG]

1pt per carry

That's an extremely aberrant scoring system, and the results in your league are frequently going to be radically different than the results in "standard" FBGs scoring, so naturally your opinions on the value of a player will differ substantially.

 

[Blue-Kun]

1pt per carry

What the hell? Do you guys give QB's a point for every snap they take too?

 

[Biabreakable]

1pt per carry

What the hell? Do you guys give QB's a point for every snap they take too?

With PPR being so popular isn't points for carries the next logical step? And then QB snaps also. Then things would be somewhat even again like they are without PPR.hmmThe point/carry does give rewards to players who have workhorse durability which is a talent.Forte weighs in at RB 17 right now in my league. Non PPR/PPC/PPS.

 

[Badm]

PPC is alot diff than snaps..... We do ppc because its a 16 team dynasty league and with this scoring system, the top 30 RBs each year tend to very greatly. RBs that have alot of carries get hurt more often.....SO with this scoring system, depth and durability is more important. Anyways, I cannot believe it makes that much difference in the scoring. Is FBGs rankings TD heavy? After a full 16 game season, these rankings between the scoring systems generally even themselves out. Just like Forte's results. The guy is a stud, even studs start slow or have a bad game...look at AP on Monday night.

 

[SSOG]

PPC is alot diff than snaps..... We do ppc because its a 16 team dynasty league and with this scoring system, the top 30 RBs each year tend to very greatly. RBs that have alot of carries get hurt more often.....SO with this scoring system, depth and durability is more important. Anyways, I cannot believe it makes that much difference in the scoring. Is FBGs rankings TD heavy? After a full 16 game season, these rankings between the scoring systems generally even themselves out. Just like Forte's results. The guy is a stud, even studs start slow or have a bad game...look at AP on Monday night.

FBGs scoring is exactly like yours, minus the point per carry and the point per reception.Also, high-workload RBs are *NOT* more susceptible to injury than low-workload RBs. If you look at the top 30 RBs last year in terms of points per game, the average carries per game of the guys who made it 16 games was higher than the average carries per game of the guys that didn't. The reasonable explanation is that coaches don't give a back a high workload unless they know he's durable enough to take it.In your scoring system, I suspect Cedric Benson is a top 5 RB. Is he a stud, too... or is he just a guy with absolutely no competition for touches?

 

[DrJ]

PPC is alot diff than snaps..... We do ppc because its a 16 team dynasty league and with this scoring system, the top 30 RBs each year tend to very greatly. RBs that have alot of carries get hurt more often.....SO with this scoring system, depth and durability is more important. Anyways, I cannot believe it makes that much difference in the scoring. Is FBGs rankings TD heavy? After a full 16 game season, these rankings between the scoring systems generally even themselves out. Just like Forte's results. The guy is a stud, even studs start slow or have a bad game...look at AP on Monday night.

FBGs scoring is exactly like yours, minus the point per carry and the point per reception.Also, high-workload RBs are *NOT* more susceptible to injury than low-workload RBs. If you look at the top 30 RBs last year in terms of points per game, the average carries per game of the guys who made it 16 games was higher than the average carries per game of the guys that didn't. The reasonable explanation is that coaches don't give a back a high workload unless they know he's durable enough to take it.In your scoring system, I suspect Cedric Benson is a top 5 RB. Is he a stud, too... or is he just a guy with absolutely no competition for touches?

Another reasonable explanation is that guys that got injured were likely limited in other games that they actually played in and/or the coach limited their snaps to prevent further aggravation.

 

[Badm]

PPC is alot diff than snaps..... We do ppc because its a 16 team dynasty league and with this scoring system, the top 30 RBs each year tend to very greatly. RBs that have alot of carries get hurt more often.....SO with this scoring system, depth and durability is more important. Anyways, I cannot believe it makes that much difference in the scoring. Is FBGs rankings TD heavy? After a full 16 game season, these rankings between the scoring systems generally even themselves out. Just like Forte's results. The guy is a stud, even studs start slow or have a bad game...look at AP on Monday night.

FBGs scoring is exactly like yours, minus the point per carry and the point per reception.Also, high-workload RBs are *NOT* more susceptible to injury than low-workload RBs. If you look at the top 30 RBs last year in terms of points per game, the average carries per game of the guys who made it 16 games was higher than the average carries per game of the guys that didn't. The reasonable explanation is that coaches don't give a back a high workload unless they know he's durable enough to take it.In your scoring system, I suspect Cedric Benson is a top 5 RB. Is he a stud, too... or is he just a guy with absolutely no competition for touches?

He is #6. Is that so out of the norm? He is averaging 4.4 yards a carry, almost 9 a reception...2 TDs.... Forte is still better and will prove out so by end of year...

 

[SSOG]

Another reasonable explanation is that guys that got injured were likely limited in other games that they actually played in and/or the coach limited their snaps to prevent further aggravation.

It's a plausible theory, but it still doesn't explain the data. There were only 5 RBs that averaged 20 carries a game last year, and 4 of them (Peterson, Turner, Portis, Forte) played a full 16 games (the fifth was Jackson, who played 12). Even if you take all the backs who got injured and remove the game where they got injured from the equation, it only adds one more RB to the mix (Willie Parker, who barely makes it with 19.7 carries per game). In Parker's case, the "limited to prevent aggravation" theory doesn't come into play, since he averaged 23 carries in his first two games back from the injury.

 

[gianmarco]

Steven Jackson & Forte are virtually tied in PPR leagues. And that's with Forte clearly being hindered with injury (that's obvious). Jackson is in the exact same situation Forte was in last year where he had to carry the team, yet Jackson isn't producing at near the level Forte did.

Forte is absolutely a better FF RB (long-term). That's considering every dynamic possible. Many people were wrong about Forte last year, yet they didn't learn their lesson. I could understand it if Forte was a fluke, but he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. It's as plain as day.

By reading this thread, you would think Forte might be a bum, yet he's scored over 38 points in standard PPR leagues the last 2 weeks (& it could've been much better had it not been a blowout last week where they sat Forte early). I simply don't get it. Remember, we play FF.

Forte may continue to fall short of last year's production if he doesn't get totally healthy, but give the guy credit. He's helped people win games the last 2 weeks despite being dinged. In this era of the vanishing feature back with many top RBs struggling, Forte is money.

Has he been listed on the injury report and I am totally unaware and missed it? Or are you simply attempting to say he must be injured because he's performing poorly, and it can't be because he just isn't good?

I'm confused... Is the argument that Forte isn't a top 5 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit #1 fantasy RB, or that Forte isn't a legit starting RB in terms of NFL talent, or that Forte just plain sucks and is nothing more than a 'stat compiler' due to opportunity? Someone who is NOT a Forte apologist indicated that he is about the 8th best fantasy back in their rankings earlier in this thread (maybe SSOG?), which is much different than saying "he just isn't good". However, the strong tone being used in posts like this one leads me to believe that some are arguing that Forte isn't a legit talent either as a starting RB in NFL or in fantasy.

I don't have any problem with those who want to debate whether or not Forte is a legit top 5 fantasy RB in dynasty leagues, because there are sound arguments to be made on either side and time will tell all.

That said, what are you arguing here?

Yeah that is what I took issue with also.I don't think Forte is AD.. didnt think he was as a rookie prospect don't think he is now.

Because really? To be top 5 talent means the player could be better than Peterson at some point and has the talent to stay in the top 5 in dynasty for years to come.

Some people will say Chris Johnson is top 5 and maybe they are right. I still have not seen enough for me to have that confidence in him.

Adrian Peterson? I pretty much knew he was that good even before he came into the NFL. And it was really obvious after his rookie game in SD.

So.. no Forte is not AD.. meaning no he is not a guy I have confidence in competing for the top 5 RB slots over the next 3 years. MJD and DeAngelo Williams are. Forte is not.

But people are suggesting that Forte has been a bust this year and will continue to be and that he will lose his job soon...

That is the other end of the spectrum entirely.

That would mean Forte is no better than what Anthony Thomas was. I still have not seen enough of Forte to be confident in judging him completely but I will say with conviction that he is quite a bit better than Anthony Thomas was.

Trying to find where Forte really is? Should be valued in dynasty?

That is why people are all over the place. And really I think it is more the language.. people like to use absolutes and exagerate to strengthen the point they are trying to make.. but in the end I don't think even they think Forte is Anthony Thomas or other average talent RBs who get chances to be productive fantasy players every year. I think he is better than that.

How much better than that is something I am still uncertain of and probably wont be answered for me this year. I still have respect for what he accomplished as a rookie and what I have seen of him.

Right now putting a gun to my head I value him as a RB2. Somewhere from RB 10-18 in the league. Statisticly he is RB 36 right now. So that tells me he is a buy right now.

As I already mentioned upthread I don't like his week 14-16 match ups this year so I am not buying. But if I were in a situation that I was not playing for this year? Or it were a priority to me to get younger at RB for 2010? Then I would be buying as a long term investment. As I believe Forte will be the starting RB for the Bears in 2011 and possibly beyond that. But I don't worry about it past 3 years from now.

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.

So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.

St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota.

Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

 

[DrJ]

Another reasonable explanation is that guys that got injured were likely limited in other games that they actually played in and/or the coach limited their snaps to prevent further aggravation.

It's a plausible theory, but it still doesn't explain the data. There were only 5 RBs that averaged 20 carries a game last year, and 4 of them (Peterson, Turner, Portis, Forte) played a full 16 games (the fifth was Jackson, who played 12). Even if you take all the backs who got injured and remove the game where they got injured from the equation, it only adds one more RB to the mix (Willie Parker, who barely makes it with 19.7 carries per game). In Parker's case, the "limited to prevent aggravation" theory doesn't come into play, since he averaged 23 carries in his first two games back from the injury.

So you're basing this entire theory of yours on a single season of data?Recent history suggests that coaches don't feel any back is capable of handling a huge workload all season long, which is why there are so many RBBC's lately. In the case of Forte and Portis, there was no one even near their skill level to compete with them.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I thought it would be interesting to examine Forte's numbers so far this year vs. last year.

2009 yards from scrimmage per game: 91

2008 yards from scrimmage per game: 107

2009 touches per game: 21

2008 touches per game: 24

2009 yards per carry: 3.82

2008 yards per carry: 3.92

2009 games of averaging 4 YPC or more: 1 out of 4

2008 games of averaging 4 YPC or more: 6 out of 16

2009 total TDs: 1 in 4 games (scored in 1 of 4 games so far)

2008 total TDs: 12 in 16 games (scored in 10 of 16 games)

So, yes, his production is down a bit, but so are his touches.

Considering he only scored twice in the first four games last year, he is only one off the pace in that department (and has already had two of his toughest run defense opponents this year).

His YPC is higher this year than it was after four games last year.

I think, as he gets healthier, his numbers will start to touch what he did last year. No, he might not live up to the high first round expectations that many had for him, but he should still be a very solid RB for most of the year. As the weather gets colder and conditions get worse, his touches will go up, and so will his production. It is a bummer for Forte touches that his other Detroit game comes in week 17, when most leagues are finished, but that is the way it goes. I think when it is all said and done, he will have 1,400-1,600 total yards and 8-10 TDs.

 

[SSOG]

Another reasonable explanation is that guys that got injured were likely limited in other games that they actually played in and/or the coach limited their snaps to prevent further aggravation.

It's a plausible theory, but it still doesn't explain the data. There were only 5 RBs that averaged 20 carries a game last year, and 4 of them (Peterson, Turner, Portis, Forte) played a full 16 games (the fifth was Jackson, who played 12). Even if you take all the backs who got injured and remove the game where they got injured from the equation, it only adds one more RB to the mix (Willie Parker, who barely makes it with 19.7 carries per game). In Parker's case, the "limited to prevent aggravation" theory doesn't come into play, since he averaged 23 carries in his first two games back from the injury.

So you're basing this entire theory of yours on a single season of data?Recent history suggests that coaches don't feel any back is capable of handling a huge workload all season long, which is why there are so many RBBC's lately. In the case of Forte and Portis, there was no one even near their skill level to compete with them.

It wasn't meant to be a theory so much as an observation of last year's data. As for Portis not having anyone near his skill level... Ladell Betts down? 245/1145 in 9 starts in '06 (4.7 ypc)?

 

[lynx4ben]

Another reasonable explanation is that guys that got injured were likely limited in other games that they actually played in and/or the coach limited their snaps to prevent further aggravation.

It's a plausible theory, but it still doesn't explain the data. There were only 5 RBs that averaged 20 carries a game last year, and 4 of them (Peterson, Turner, Portis, Forte) played a full 16 games (the fifth was Jackson, who played 12). Even if you take all the backs who got injured and remove the game where they got injured from the equation, it only adds one more RB to the mix (Willie Parker, who barely makes it with 19.7 carries per game). In Parker's case, the "limited to prevent aggravation" theory doesn't come into play, since he averaged 23 carries in his first two games back from the injury.

So you're basing this entire theory of yours on a single season of data?Recent history suggests that coaches don't feel any back is capable of handling a huge workload all season long, which is why there are so many RBBC's lately. In the case of Forte and Portis, there was no one even near their skill level to compete with them.

It wasn't meant to be a theory so much as an observation of last year's data. As for Portis not having anyone near his skill level... Ladell Betts down? 245/1145 in 9 starts in '06 (4.7 ypc)?

So what is Forte's value now? He has an easy schedule coming up so I see his value increasing. I currently could trade him for both Westy/Mccoy. It's hard for me to determine the value of Forte now; even harder to evaluate the value of the package of westy/mccoy. I've tried to shop him around but am not getting a ton of bites. My team is RB needy so I can't afford a significant downgrade.

 

[SSOG]

So what is Forte's value now? He has an easy schedule coming up so I see his value increasing. I currently could trade him for both Westy/Mccoy. It's hard for me to determine the value of Forte now; even harder to evaluate the value of the package of westy/mccoy.

I've tried to shop him around but am not getting a ton of bites. My team is RB needy so I can't afford a significant downgrade.

I'm not nearly as sold on McCoy as many are. I wouldn't take that trade, but that's less a reflection on Forte than it is on McCoy. If nothing else, I suspect that Forte could command more than that on the open market. You could probably get a much wider range of opinions in F&L's dynasty thread.

 

[Biabreakable]

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota. Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

At one point McGahee was 24 years old and many thought he would be an elite RB. He carried high trade value when he was younger and had some decent seasons. But McGahee has always been an injury risk. I am not seeing that risk with Forte.Addai and Lynch have had brief times where they were rated top 5 or close to it also. Moreso Addai than Lynch.However Addai has not proven to be very resiliant with a lot of carries either. Indy kept bringing back Rhodes or someone to share with him. Not so with Forte.Lynch has off the field issues. I have not seen this be a problem with Forte either.I don't think your arguing that Forte has the same issues that has caused these players to lose playing time and are at risk of losing their jobs. They have issues that Forte does not have. Forte is 23 years old right now. There is reason to think he will get better and much younger than any of these guys. Including Steven Jackson.The Bears will be working on their defense offensive line and possibly a reciever for Cutler. I do not see Forte being challenged for several years. So unless Forte gets hurt badly or gets a bad attitude why would you rank him similarly to these guys? And say 2-3 years from now the Bears do get a RB who can compete with him? He will be in a contract year anyways so who knows what is going to happen?If you had Forte ranked top 5 before this season started there is no reason that 25% of the season should change your mind now. If he continues to struggle all season then yes something is wrong. And that would put his job at risk.So if you think he is injured and won't recover? There is a reason to be concerned. But I think Forte's job is secure even if he got injured missed all of this season and the Bears would make do with whoever they could. But Forte would still likely be the Bears starter in 2010 anyways.I think he is a buy low for next year. Not great for this year because of playoff schedule.If your fluid enough though you could buy low now then trade him again after a few games for possibly more later on.

 

[gianmarco]

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.

So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.

St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota.

Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

At one point McGahee was 24 years old and many thought he would be an elite RB. He carried high trade value when he was younger and had some decent seasons. But McGahee has always been an injury risk. I am not seeing that risk with Forte.Addai and Lynch have had brief times where they were rated top 5 or close to it also. Moreso Addai than Lynch.

However Addai has not proven to be very resiliant with a lot of carries either. Indy kept bringing back Rhodes or someone to share with him. Not so with Forte.

Lynch has off the field issues. I have not seen this be a problem with Forte either.

I don't think your arguing that Forte has the same issues that has caused these players to lose playing time and are at risk of losing their jobs. They have issues that Forte does not have. Forte is 23 years old right now. There is reason to think he will get better and much younger than any of these guys. Including Steven Jackson.

The Bears will be working on their defense offensive line and possibly a reciever for Cutler. I do not see Forte being challenged for several years.

So unless Forte gets hurt badly or gets a bad attitude why would you rank him similarly to these guys? And say 2-3 years from now the Bears do get a RB who can compete with him? He will be in a contract year anyways so who knows what is going to happen?

If you had Forte ranked top 5 before this season started there is no reason that 25% of the season should change your mind now. If he continues to struggle all season then yes something is wrong. And that would put his job at risk.

So if you think he is injured and won't recover? There is a reason to be concerned. But I think Forte's job is secure even if he got injured missed all of this season and the Bears would make do with whoever they could. But Forte would still likely be the Bears starter in 2010 anyways.

I think he is a buy low for next year. Not great for this year because of playoff schedule.

If your fluid enough though you could buy low now then trade him again after a few games for possibly more later on.

I didn't have Forte top 5 heading into this year, so the 1st 4 weeks haven't changed that. And yes, those things you listed about Addai and Lynch are true. What you're forgetting is that both of those guys carried top 5 value early in their career as well. They don't now. All I'm saying is that it's VERY possible (and IMO probable) that Forte follows in those footsteps for one reason or another.Where we disagree in the sense that Forte's job is secure for several years. People thought the same about Addai. People thought the same about Lynch. People thought the same about R. Bush. People thought the same about Willie Parker. People thought the same about Barber.

That was until D. Brown was drafted. Or Fred Jackson showed up. Or Pierre started lighting it up. Or Mendenhall was drafted. Or Felix was drafted. NO ONE expected Pitt or Dallas to take RB's where they did. Same when Minn took AP. Thing is, these things happen ALL THE TIME. If a stud RB falls to Chicago, they may not hesitate to take him. How secure would you feel if Chicago had Dwyer fall in their lap and take him? Think Forte's job would be completely secure? I don't. But, I can tell you I wouldn't think twice if Dwyer went to Minnesota or St. Louis because he won't be taking those guys' starting job anytime soon. I just can't say the same for Forte.

 

[Biabreakable]

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.

So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.

St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota.

Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

At one point McGahee was 24 years old and many thought he would be an elite RB. He carried high trade value when he was younger and had some decent seasons. But McGahee has always been an injury risk. I am not seeing that risk with Forte.Addai and Lynch have had brief times where they were rated top 5 or close to it also. Moreso Addai than Lynch.

However Addai has not proven to be very resiliant with a lot of carries either. Indy kept bringing back Rhodes or someone to share with him. Not so with Forte.

Lynch has off the field issues. I have not seen this be a problem with Forte either.

I don't think your arguing that Forte has the same issues that has caused these players to lose playing time and are at risk of losing their jobs. They have issues that Forte does not have. Forte is 23 years old right now. There is reason to think he will get better and much younger than any of these guys. Including Steven Jackson.

The Bears will be working on their defense offensive line and possibly a reciever for Cutler. I do not see Forte being challenged for several years.

So unless Forte gets hurt badly or gets a bad attitude why would you rank him similarly to these guys? And say 2-3 years from now the Bears do get a RB who can compete with him? He will be in a contract year anyways so who knows what is going to happen?

If you had Forte ranked top 5 before this season started there is no reason that 25% of the season should change your mind now. If he continues to struggle all season then yes something is wrong. And that would put his job at risk.

So if you think he is injured and won't recover? There is a reason to be concerned. But I think Forte's job is secure even if he got injured missed all of this season and the Bears would make do with whoever they could. But Forte would still likely be the Bears starter in 2010 anyways.

I think he is a buy low for next year. Not great for this year because of playoff schedule.

If your fluid enough though you could buy low now then trade him again after a few games for possibly more later on.

I didn't have Forte top 5 heading into this year, so the 1st 4 weeks haven't changed that. And yes, those things you listed about Addai and Lynch are true. What you're forgetting is that both of those guys carried top 5 value early in their career as well. They don't now. All I'm saying is that it's VERY possible (and IMO probable) that Forte follows in those footsteps for one reason or another.Where we disagree in the sense that Forte's job is secure for several years. People thought the same about Addai. People thought the same about Lynch. People thought the same about R. Bush. People thought the same about Willie Parker. People thought the same about Barber.

That was until D. Brown was drafted. Or Fred Jackson showed up. Or Pierre started lighting it up. Or Mendenhall was drafted. Or Felix was drafted. NO ONE expected Pitt or Dallas to take RB's where they did. Same when Minn took AP. Thing is, these things happen ALL THE TIME. If a stud RB falls to Chicago, they may not hesitate to take him. How secure would you feel if Chicago had Dwyer fall in their lap and take him? Think Forte's job would be completely secure? I don't. But, I can tell you I wouldn't think twice if Dwyer went to Minnesota or St. Louis because he won't be taking those guys' starting job anytime soon. I just can't say the same for Forte.

I don't think we are that far off from how we look at it. I consider Forte to be a RB2 but a RB2 with a lot less flaws and a lot more going for him than most RB in the league right now.Sure anything can happen. But when I look at the Bears team I see QB and RB being their lowest priorities for ugrade.

But if Forte sucks like some seem to think he does maybe I am wrong.

ETA- Forte does all the little things like pass protection. Recieving ability. Durability. He is the kind of player a team will count on.

If the Bears did draft a 1st round RB next year somehow? I don't think Forte is DeAnglo Williams. So that scenario would probably look more like Dallas. Except Forte is a feature RB unlike Barber and he wont come out on 3rd down.

 

[tdmills]

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.

So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.

St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota.

Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

At one point McGahee was 24 years old and many thought he would be an elite RB. He carried high trade value when he was younger and had some decent seasons. But McGahee has always been an injury risk. I am not seeing that risk with Forte.Addai and Lynch have had brief times where they were rated top 5 or close to it also. Moreso Addai than Lynch.

However Addai has not proven to be very resiliant with a lot of carries either. Indy kept bringing back Rhodes or someone to share with him. Not so with Forte.

Lynch has off the field issues. I have not seen this be a problem with Forte either.

I don't think your arguing that Forte has the same issues that has caused these players to lose playing time and are at risk of losing their jobs. They have issues that Forte does not have. Forte is 23 years old right now. There is reason to think he will get better and much younger than any of these guys. Including Steven Jackson.

The Bears will be working on their defense offensive line and possibly a reciever for Cutler. I do not see Forte being challenged for several years.

So unless Forte gets hurt badly or gets a bad attitude why would you rank him similarly to these guys? And say 2-3 years from now the Bears do get a RB who can compete with him? He will be in a contract year anyways so who knows what is going to happen?

If you had Forte ranked top 5 before this season started there is no reason that 25% of the season should change your mind now. If he continues to struggle all season then yes something is wrong. And that would put his job at risk.

So if you think he is injured and won't recover? There is a reason to be concerned. But I think Forte's job is secure even if he got injured missed all of this season and the Bears would make do with whoever they could. But Forte would still likely be the Bears starter in 2010 anyways.

I think he is a buy low for next year. Not great for this year because of playoff schedule.

If your fluid enough though you could buy low now then trade him again after a few games for possibly more later on.

I didn't have Forte top 5 heading into this year, so the 1st 4 weeks haven't changed that. And yes, those things you listed about Addai and Lynch are true. What you're forgetting is that both of those guys carried top 5 value early in their career as well. They don't now. All I'm saying is that it's VERY possible (and IMO probable) that Forte follows in those footsteps for one reason or another.Where we disagree in the sense that Forte's job is secure for several years. People thought the same about Addai. People thought the same about Lynch. People thought the same about R. Bush. People thought the same about Willie Parker. People thought the same about Barber.

That was until D. Brown was drafted. Or Fred Jackson showed up. Or Pierre started lighting it up. Or Mendenhall was drafted. Or Felix was drafted. NO ONE expected Pitt or Dallas to take RB's where they did. Same when Minn took AP. Thing is, these things happen ALL THE TIME. If a stud RB falls to Chicago, they may not hesitate to take him. How secure would you feel if Chicago had Dwyer fall in their lap and take him? Think Forte's job would be completely secure? I don't. But, I can tell you I wouldn't think twice if Dwyer went to Minnesota or St. Louis because he won't be taking those guys' starting job anytime soon. I just can't say the same for Forte.

I don't think we are that far off from how we look at it. I consider Forte to be a RB2 but a RB2 with a lot less flaws and a lot more going for him than most RB in the league right now.Sure anything can happen. But when I look at the Bears team I see QB and RB being their lowest priorities for ugrade.

But if Forte sucks like some seem to think he does maybe I am wrong.

ETA- Forte does all the little things like pass protection. Recieving ability. Durability. He is the kind of player a team will count on.

If the Bears did draft a 1st round RB next year somehow? I don't think Forte is DeAnglo Williams. So that scenario would probably look more like Dallas. Except Forte is a feature RB unlike Barber and he wont come out on 3rd down.

It would be surprising if the Bears took a RB in the first round....considering they don't have one.

 

[Biabreakable]

To me, Forte is nothing more than McGahee, Addai, or Lynch part 2. Guys with a solid set of skills who, given the right situation, can produce very solid-great #'s. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, they are also replaceable talents. McGahee has always been a solid producer on run-first teams, but with a guy like Rice now in the fold, there's been constant talk that he will lose his job. Rice was drafted after he put up 1200/7 rushing and another 43/230/1 receiving in 2007. As a result, his fantasy value has plummeted. We all know how Addai started, but many stated he was simply an average talent in an above-average situation. Now, this year, they draft Donald Brown, and Addai's fantasy value has plummeted. Lynch was viewed as a top 5 talent after his rookie despite pretty average #'s overall (similar to Forte). Only average 4.0 ypc, didn't have many big games, did well due to amount of workload. Last year, performed similarly. Now, with Fred Jackson performing well, there's talk and concern about splitting time with Lynch. His value has gone down from his top 5 status heading into last year.

So, THAT is the concern about Forte. There are many that don't consider his talent to be elite and his value has been mostly related to his situation and opportunity moreso than his ability. It doesn't mean he's worthless in a fantasy sense. These guys still have value when they are on the field. But, in dynasty terms, these are NOT guys you want to build your team around. In other words, NOT guys you want to spend a top 5 draft pick on like many have done on him this year. What happens when the Bears draft a RB high in the draft next year? Impossible, you say? Willie Parker, Addai, DeAngelo, Priest Holmes, Chester Taylor, etc. owners said the same things when guys like Stewart, Mendenhall, Brown, LJ, and AP were drafted on teams that seemingly had the RB position set just fine. Is Forte producing so well that he'd be immune to that? Not a chance.

St. Louis will NOT be drafting a RB that will replace S. Jackson. Same goes for Minnesota.

Now, I know SOMEONE has to be taken at those high picks, but the point of this thread was simply that Forte's value will probably never be higher than what it is now and has a VERY good chance to go down in the near future. Reason is, he's a replaceable talent. At least that's what he looks like now.

At one point McGahee was 24 years old and many thought he would be an elite RB. He carried high trade value when he was younger and had some decent seasons. But McGahee has always been an injury risk. I am not seeing that risk with Forte.Addai and Lynch have had brief times where they were rated top 5 or close to it also. Moreso Addai than Lynch.

However Addai has not proven to be very resiliant with a lot of carries either. Indy kept bringing back Rhodes or someone to share with him. Not so with Forte.

Lynch has off the field issues. I have not seen this be a problem with Forte either.

I don't think your arguing that Forte has the same issues that has caused these players to lose playing time and are at risk of losing their jobs. They have issues that Forte does not have. Forte is 23 years old right now. There is reason to think he will get better and much younger than any of these guys. Including Steven Jackson.

The Bears will be working on their defense offensive line and possibly a reciever for Cutler. I do not see Forte being challenged for several years.

So unless Forte gets hurt badly or gets a bad attitude why would you rank him similarly to these guys? And say 2-3 years from now the Bears do get a RB who can compete with him? He will be in a contract year anyways so who knows what is going to happen?

If you had Forte ranked top 5 before this season started there is no reason that 25% of the season should change your mind now. If he continues to struggle all season then yes something is wrong. And that would put his job at risk.

So if you think he is injured and won't recover? There is a reason to be concerned. But I think Forte's job is secure even if he got injured missed all of this season and the Bears would make do with whoever they could. But Forte would still likely be the Bears starter in 2010 anyways.

I think he is a buy low for next year. Not great for this year because of playoff schedule.

If your fluid enough though you could buy low now then trade him again after a few games for possibly more later on.

I didn't have Forte top 5 heading into this year, so the 1st 4 weeks haven't changed that. And yes, those things you listed about Addai and Lynch are true. What you're forgetting is that both of those guys carried top 5 value early in their career as well. They don't now. All I'm saying is that it's VERY possible (and IMO probable) that Forte follows in those footsteps for one reason or another.Where we disagree in the sense that Forte's job is secure for several years. People thought the same about Addai. People thought the same about Lynch. People thought the same about R. Bush. People thought the same about Willie Parker. People thought the same about Barber.

That was until D. Brown was drafted. Or Fred Jackson showed up. Or Pierre started lighting it up. Or Mendenhall was drafted. Or Felix was drafted. NO ONE expected Pitt or Dallas to take RB's where they did. Same when Minn took AP. Thing is, these things happen ALL THE TIME. If a stud RB falls to Chicago, they may not hesitate to take him. How secure would you feel if Chicago had Dwyer fall in their lap and take him? Think Forte's job would be completely secure? I don't. But, I can tell you I wouldn't think twice if Dwyer went to Minnesota or St. Louis because he won't be taking those guys' starting job anytime soon. I just can't say the same for Forte.

I don't think we are that far off from how we look at it. I consider Forte to be a RB2 but a RB2 with a lot less flaws and a lot more going for him than most RB in the league right now.Sure anything can happen. But when I look at the Bears team I see QB and RB being their lowest priorities for ugrade.

But if Forte sucks like some seem to think he does maybe I am wrong.

ETA- Forte does all the little things like pass protection. Recieving ability. Durability. He is the kind of player a team will count on.

If the Bears did draft a 1st round RB next year somehow? I don't think Forte is DeAnglo Williams. So that scenario would probably look more like Dallas. Except Forte is a feature RB unlike Barber and he wont come out on 3rd down.

It would be surprising if the Bears took a RB in the first round....considering they don't have one.

HAha. Another good point.

 

[Instinctive]

I don't want to quote your entire post for this, but you were you insinuating that Barber comes out on third down? He most defnitely, for most if not all of his career, has not come out on 3rd downs. Good receiver.

Problem with the "little thing" of pass protection, is that anybody can learn it. All it takes is desire. Very replaceable in a RB.

 

[switz]

I don't want to quote your entire post for this, but you were you insinuating that Barber comes out on third down? He most defnitely, for most if not all of his career, has not come out on 3rd downs. Good receiver.Problem with the "little thing" of pass protection, is that anybody can learn it. All it takes is desire. Very replaceable in a RB.