Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 Was perusing the early morning rags and saw a small blip about how "Arian Foster to Chicago makes the most sense." When I went to open it was a video article so I didn't get a chance to see who the hell made this prediction. But why on earth would the Bears ever consider this? Granted he was once a good player but in the last few years he's had nothing but health concerns. If we won't keep Forte this makes no sense at all. And as Jason would say this is pure "dumb". Absolutely, undeniably no thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 Was perusing the early morning rags and saw a small blip about how "Arian Foster to Chicago makes the most sense." When I went to open it was a video article so I didn't get a chance to see who the hell made this prediction. But why on earth would the Bears ever consider this? Granted he was once a good player but in the last few years he's had nothing but health concerns. If we won't keep Forte this makes no sense at all. And as Jason would say this is pure "dumb". Absolutely, undeniably no thank you. If McCaskey was being honest about being a could of years away then this makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 If we were going to bring in a veteran back, it should be Forte and no one else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Found a printed version of the article. The fact the author said Forte will be released "...most likely because of Jeremy Langford." tells me this person has never watched the Bears. Let alone he's comparing virtual duplicates; catch out of the backfield and both 29 being most obvious. One big difference; Forte's not an injury risk. http://showtimesports.sportsblog.com/posts...cago-bears.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Was perusing the early morning rags and saw a small blip about how "Arian Foster to Chicago makes the most sense." When I went to open it was a video article so I didn't get a chance to see who the hell made this prediction. But why on earth would the Bears ever consider this? Granted he was once a good player but in the last few years he's had nothing but health concerns. If we won't keep Forte this makes no sense at all. And as Jason would say this is pure "dumb". Absolutely, undeniably no thank you. What's Foster's value? Forte is supposed to be worth well north of 5 million per year. Could we get Foster for 2 million? That's a big savings. I'm thinking of what Arizona did last year. They drafted David Johnson in the 3rd round, they had Andre Ellington, and then they signed Chris Johnson to a one year two million $$$ deal. To me it comes down to this: are the Bears better or worse with Arian Foster on the roster? If the answer is yes, then we at least consider signing him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Found a printed version of the article. The fact the author said Forte will be released "...most likely because of Jeremy Langford." tells me this person has never watched the Bears. Let alone he's comparing virtual duplicates; catch out of the backfield and both 29 being most obvious. One big difference; Forte's not an injury risk. http://showtimesports.sportsblog.com/posts...cago-bears.html Any time a player is released, someone posts an opinion we should get him. Some sportswriters dont have anything to talk about so they invent shit. This is not a Bear official, just some idiot on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 They got the teams wrong. They must mean Forte would be a good fit for the Texans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 What's Foster's value? Forte is supposed to be worth well north of 5 million per year. Could we get Foster for 2 million? That's a big savings. I'm thinking of what Arizona did last year. They drafted David Johnson in the 3rd round, they had Andre Ellington, and then they signed Chris Johnson to a one year two million $$$ deal. To me it comes down to this: are the Bears better or worse with Arian Foster on the roster? If the answer is yes, then we at least consider signing him. Reports are Andre Ellington is close to being shown the door in AZ. He has been injured every year. That's no surprise because that's what happens when you run a little guy 20-25 times a game. AZ knew they had to invest somewhat early to get a RB last season. Chris Johnson was a desperatation move after they had RBs go down with injury (including Ellington again). If Ellington does get cut I'd consider adding him to the Bears. He's done some KR but I don't see any PR history. It wouldn't hurt to bring him in for a tryout to see if he can catch punts. As a part time RB he's very good but I don't think he can handle more than 10 carries a game and make it through the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 They got the teams wrong. They must mean Forte would be a good fit for the Texans. LOL, you are right about that!! Forte would be a smart move by the Texans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Was perusing the early morning rags and saw a small blip about how "Arian Foster to Chicago makes the most sense." When I went to open it was a video article so I didn't get a chance to see who the hell made this prediction. But why on earth would the Bears ever consider this? Granted he was once a good player but in the last few years he's had nothing but health concerns. If we won't keep Forte this makes no sense at all. And as Jason would say this is pure "dumb". Absolutely, undeniably no thank you. It seems that as long as we're not talking about Cutler, we agree for the most part. Picking up Foster would, indeed, be dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 It seems that as long as we're not talking about Cutler, we agree for the most part. Picking up Foster would, indeed, be dumb. Why would picking up Foster be dumb? Answer this: Does he make our team better? I'm not saying we rely on him as a featured back but as part of the mix. Matt Forte is worth more than the 5 years 10 million Frank Gore received from the Colts last year. That's why we passed. But if Foster would sign for 2-3 million for one year, wouldn't it be worth it? Not as the featured back but to split time with Langford. Langford has much to prove. I don't see any downside to signing Foster cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Why would picking up Foster be dumb? Answer this: Does he make our team better? I'm not saying we rely on him as a featured back but as part of the mix. Matt Forte is worth more than the 5 years 10 million Frank Gore received from the Colts last year. That's why we passed. But if Foster would sign for 2-3 million for one year, wouldn't it be worth it? Not as the featured back but to split time with Langford. Langford has much to prove. I don't see any downside to signing Foster cheap. Meh. With his recent injury history I wouldn't be settled with him, even as a third down back like the article suggests. Think Eddie Royal and then be right about it. Just wouldn't be worth it IMHO. Id much rather see them draft another RB in the first three or four rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Why would picking up Foster be dumb? Answer this: Does he make our team better? I'm not saying we rely on him as a featured back but as part of the mix. Matt Forte is worth more than the 5 years 10 million Frank Gore received from the Colts last year. That's why we passed. But if Foster would sign for 2-3 million for one year, wouldn't it be worth it? Not as the featured back but to split time with Langford. Langford has much to prove. I don't see any downside to signing Foster cheap. That is the key to bringing any FA in here, getting them for a bargain valve. Giving he 2 to 3 mil wont happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Why would picking up Foster be dumb? Answer this: Does he make our team better? I'm not saying we rely on him as a featured back but as part of the mix. Matt Forte is worth more than the 5 years 10 million Frank Gore received from the Colts last year. That's why we passed. But if Foster would sign for 2-3 million for one year, wouldn't it be worth it? Not as the featured back but to split time with Langford. Langford has much to prove. I don't see any downside to signing Foster cheap. Because he would.. 1. be a nuisance. 2. bitch the first time he wasn't the lead RB. 3. get injured 4. take away development carries from Langford and Carey. 5. probably cost more than you are stating. The "does he make our team better"-question is far too simple to determine if someone should be on the team. If the Bears want to spend money on a third RB to complement Langford and Carey, it needs to be a bruising GL back who can get 3-yards regardless of the situation and can cave in a blitzing LB's ribs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Because he would.. 1. be a nuisance. 2. bitch the first time he wasn't the lead RB. 3. get injured 4. take away development carries from Langford and Carey. 5. probably cost more than you are stating. The "does he make our team better"-question is far too simple to determine if someone should be on the team. If the Bears want to spend money on a third RB to complement Langford and Carey, it needs to be a bruising GL back who can get 3-yards regardless of the situation and can cave in a blitzing LB's ribs. Carey has proven he can be our bruising GL back. I should have prefaced that if we sign Foster, it would be well after the free agency date. It would be with the understanding that he's part of the committee. If he doesn't like it or bitches, he'll get the Martellus Bennett treatment where we put him on IR, Matt Forte has a lot of value right now. Arian Foster does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Carey has proven he can be our bruising GL back. I should have prefaced that if we sign Foster, it would be well after the free agency date. It would be with the understanding that he's part of the committee. If he doesn't like it or bitches, he'll get the Martellus Bennett treatment where we put him on IR, Matt Forte has a lot of value right now. Arian Foster does not. If Foster can still be an effective back, he will be a problem if not the lead back. He will cost more than a vet deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 If Foster can still be an effective back, he will be a problem if not the lead back. He will cost more than a vet deal. Exactamundo. 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.