jason Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Just like Peanut. Just like Urlacher. Forte wants to remain in Chicago. http://www.csnchicago.com/bears/workhorse-...-stellar-career I think this article is basically a sign that he won't be with the Bears next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I see three more productive years for him. If he would be willing to take a deal similar to Frank Gore, I would sign him. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I can go either way with Forte. The difference between he and Urlacher/Peanut is we have young replacements in place. They did show this year that they can work all 3 in, so it wouldn't really stunt Langford/Careys growth. From a business standpoint though, it doesn't really make much since. Spending 5 mill or whatever on a guy when you have 2 capable guys isn't that wise. Buttttt they do have a ton of cash soooo.....again, I can go either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 All these guys want to be back but want to be paid a certain way to come back, which just doesn't fit with the economic reality of the situation. The Bears drafted Langford specifically because they knew Forte was going to be a free agent and there's nothing about Langford's performance this year that should dissuade them from that strategy. If he wants to come back on a very friendly deal, that's fine with me, but when he steps on the open market and someone decides to throw him an offer that's $2 million over the Bears' offer, I wonder if he will still be talking about his desire to come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I can go either way with Forte. The difference between he and Urlacher/Peanut is we have young replacements in place. They did show this year that they can work all 3 in, so it wouldn't really stunt Langford/Careys growth. From a business standpoint though, it doesn't really make much since. Spending 5 mill or whatever on a guy when you have 2 capable guys isn't that wise. Buttttt they do have a ton of cash soooo.....again, I can go either way. By that reasoning though, they should have never drafted Langford. Forte and Carey were fine, and Langford was only drafted because Carey never got carries, so nobody knew his ability. That's why I was against the Langford pick when there were so many other holes to fill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 By that reasoning though, they should have never drafted Langford. Forte and Carey were fine, and Langford was only drafted because Carey never got carries, so nobody knew his ability. That's why I was against the Langford pick when there were so many other holes to fill. Forte was 30th in the league in yards per carries last year. There is a ton of evidence out there that shows RBs start to hit a way around 30. It made a ton of sense to draft a RB of the future. As you said, the staff didn't know much about Carey, now the do. The reasoning really isn't the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Forte was 30th in the league in yards per carries last year. There is a ton of evidence out there that shows RBs start to hit a way around 30. It made a ton of sense to draft a RB of the future. As you said, the staff didn't know much about Carey, now the do. The reasoning really isn't the same. The team was atrocious last year. Can't blame Forte. They had two capable guys on the roster. That was my point. The only real good reason to draft Langford was to hamstring Forte in contract negotiations. Business-wise, it makes some sense, but I'm not a big fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The team was atrocious last year. Can't blame Forte. They had two capable guys on the roster. That was my point. The only real good reason to draft Langford was to hamstring Forte in contract negotiations. Business-wise, it makes some sense, but I'm not a big fan. Forte was a running back about to be a FA and the Bears had a guy who was at the top of their draft board, having limited perspective on Carey. Remember, at some point last year, people thought Carey was going to get cut. Between Forte being an impending free agent and very long in his tooth, I have absolutely no reason to see why the Bears would invest in back that they thought highly of. And I'm thrilled they did. Langford is going to be a very good football player and a total bargain given where he was picked. We have to look at the landscape of the league and history of the RB position...very few RB's are successful past 30. I hope Forte comes back at a fair price, but if he wants another big contract, I hope the Bears aren't the ones foolish to give it to him. This is the NFL and age matters a ton and guys drop off pretty quick (especially at RB). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Forte was a running back about to be a FA and the Bears had a guy who was at the top of their draft board, having limited perspective on Carey. Remember, at some point last year, people thought Carey was going to get cut. Yeah, Jason's point here doesn't make sense unless there was continuity on the front office throughout the period being evaluated. I'd give Forte a 2 year deal if he'd agree to be compensated like a 30 year old RB. I love the way he plays but you can't ignore that Langford looks very capable and Matt is 30 years old. With that said, if we do part ways with Forte, I hope it's done better than they did it with #54. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Looking over RB contracts it seems Forte will likely fall into the $4mil/yr salary range. The trick is figuring out what to guarantee. Charles avg $6.9mil/yr, 3.95 guaranteed Vereen avg $4.1mil/yr, 4.75 guaranteed Gore avg $4mil/yr, 6.5mil guaranteed Spiller avg $4mil/yr, 5.75 guaranteed Ingram avg $4mil/yr, 6.1 guaranteed Mathews avg $3.6mil/yr, 5.0 guaranteed Sproles avg $3.5mil/yr, 5.5 guaranteed Gerhart avg $3.5mil/yr, 4.5 guaranteed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Looking over RB contracts it seems Forte will likely fall into the $4mil/yr salary range. The trick is figuring out what to guarantee. Charles avg $6.9mil/yr, 3.95 guaranteed Vereen avg $4.1mil/yr, 4.75 guaranteed Gore avg $4mil/yr, 6.5mil guaranteed Spiller avg $4mil/yr, 5.75 guaranteed Ingram avg $4mil/yr, 6.1 guaranteed Mathews avg $3.6mil/yr, 5.0 guaranteed Sproles avg $3.5mil/yr, 5.5 guaranteed Gerhart avg $3.5mil/yr, 4.5 guaranteed I think Forte still has valve, and would add to the mix if kept. Foxy always goes with RB by committee and would keep Matt fresher when he is in there. You offer him a team friendly deal, and if he takes it great, if not, just move on. Maybe a 2 year deal worth 7 mil, with 4 guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 They all say that until their demands exceed future return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Looking over RB contracts it seems Forte will likely fall into the $4mil/yr salary range. The trick is figuring out what to guarantee. Charles avg $6.9mil/yr, 3.95 guaranteed Vereen avg $4.1mil/yr, 4.75 guaranteed Gore avg $4mil/yr, 6.5mil guaranteed Spiller avg $4mil/yr, 5.75 guaranteed Ingram avg $4mil/yr, 6.1 guaranteed Mathews avg $3.6mil/yr, 5.0 guaranteed Sproles avg $3.5mil/yr, 5.5 guaranteed Gerhart avg $3.5mil/yr, 4.5 guaranteed I disagree. Forte is EASILY better than every guy on that lost aside from Charles. More like $5M per year, upwards of $5M guaranteed. Do that for 2-3 years front-loaded, and it is appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I disagree. Forte is EASILY better than every guy on that lost aside from Charles. More like $5M per year, upwards of $5M guaranteed. Do that for 2-3 years front-loaded, and it is appropriate. Or Carey and Langford and invest Forte's money in the oline or defense? That is the reality of the question. We have a solid backup in Carey and a guy who did nothing but look like a starter in Langford (and a potential above average one in that) and both of whom are young and cost effective. Frank Gore was a stud...what good did that deal do for the Colts? I would like Forte back, but reality is, very unlikely the economics make sense for the Bears. If I'm a contending team, who struggles at RB, I can justify that price, but the Bears have a lot of other holes and they can actually have pieces who look like quality backs on the roster. I can't see how or why the Bears would pay him similarly than someone like the Pats. By the way, I agree that Forte isn't even in the same league as anyone on that list except Charles (who is way better than Forte). Gore is the only other one who was close, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Or Carey and Langford and invest Forte's money in the oline or defense? That is the reality of the question. We have a solid backup in Carey and a guy who did nothing but look like a starter in Langford (and a potential above average one in that) and both of whom are young and cost effective. Frank Gore was a stud...what good did that deal do for the Colts? I would like Forte back, but reality is, very unlikely the economics make sense for the Bears. If I'm a contending team, who struggles at RB, I can justify that price, but the Bears have a lot of other holes and they can actually have pieces who look like quality backs on the roster. I can't see how or why the Bears would pay him similarly than someone like the Pats. By the way, I agree that Forte isn't even in the same league as anyone on that list except Charles (who is way better than Forte). Gore is the only other one who was close, imo. Charles cannot stay healthy, otherwise he may be better. Matt Forte 120games 120 games started 8602 RushYds 4116 RecYds 12718 total J Charles 100 games 69 games started 7270 RushYds 2443 RecYds 9663 total. Charles has 62 TD's Forte has 64 TD's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Charles cannot stay healthy, otherwise he may be better. Matt Forte 120games 120 games started 8602 RushYds 4116 RecYds 12718 total J Charles 100 games 69 games started 7270 RushYds 2443 RecYds 9663 total. Charles has 62 TD's Forte has 64 TD's I agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Or Carey and Langford and invest Forte's money in the oline or defense? That is the reality of the question. We have a solid backup in Carey and a guy who did nothing but look like a starter in Langford (and a potential above average one in that) and both of whom are young and cost effective. Frank Gore was a stud...what good did that deal do for the Colts? I would like Forte back, but reality is, very unlikely the economics make sense for the Bears. If I'm a contending team, who struggles at RB, I can justify that price, but the Bears have a lot of other holes and they can actually have pieces who look like quality backs on the roster. I can't see how or why the Bears would pay him similarly than someone like the Pats. By the way, I agree that Forte isn't even in the same league as anyone on that list except Charles (who is way better than Forte). Gore is the only other one who was close, imo. It is certainly the cheaper option, no denying that. I am just not sure the Bears should ignore Forte - a proven stud, versatile, workhorse - for a young guy who has one semi-successful year under his belt, and another who has done nearly nothing. Put another way, what if Langford gets hurt or simply regresses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Or Carey and Langford and invest Forte's money in the oline or defense? That is the reality of the question. We have a solid backup in Carey and a guy who did nothing but look like a starter in Langford (and a potential above average one in that) and both of whom are young and cost effective. Frank Gore was a stud...what good did that deal do for the Colts? I would like Forte back, but reality is, very unlikely the economics make sense for the Bears. If I'm a contending team, who struggles at RB, I can justify that price, but the Bears have a lot of other holes and they can actually have pieces who look like quality backs on the roster. I can't see how or why the Bears would pay him similarly than someone like the Pats. By the way, I agree that Forte isn't even in the same league as anyone on that list except Charles (who is way better than Forte). Gore is the only other one who was close, imo. I'm in this camp more than the pay Forte $5 or 6mil/yr. I think we'll survive just fine with Langford and Carey especially if I take the $5-6mil for Forte and spend it on the Oline in front of those two guys. For 2 years I have not been enamored with Forte's pass protection and have said so here. He fairly often misses blocks completely or he gets pushed around so quickly that Cutler has to adjust almost immediately. He does not have long speed, never really did. He is great at reading the plays and setting up blocks and he's great at versatility as far as being able to split out at WR. I'd like to have him back but my calculation says that his money spent on fixing the Oline makes Langford and Carey better, plus it makes Cutler better, which makes any WR we can manage to get on the field better. There isn't a whole lot out there in Free Agency at RG but at LG there is a young stud named Keleche Osemele from Baltimore (the fact he's a Cyclone doesn't hurt either). Ravens don't have a lot of cap space right now and he's going to get a lot of interest around the league. He also reportedly played at LT when needed this past season and did well enough, which is great versatility to have on your roster when your starter will likely be Leno. He played at RT in his career as well so he's been on both sides. I'd gladly sign him and put him at RG next to Kyle Long. We grabbed McPhee from Baltimore last year why not double dip? http://espn.go.com/blog/baltimore-ravens/p...-agent-rankings We have a lot of cap space so it's possible we could come back and sign Forte as well but he is not my priority FA heading into the offseason. I much prefer to go after someone like Osemele early and hard with a lot of guaranteed money. In the meantime, I'd tell Forte to shop around and let us know what he's got and we'll see what we can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.