Pixote Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 I've been thrilled with everything I have read about this guy. Now with the possible problems of Benson (he hasn't been proved to be guilty of anything yet) I am THRILLED we selected him in rd 2. In an article by Brad Biggs he is stating Detroit was going to select him in rd 2 if we passed on him. So, as said before, if we felt this guy was the best "all-around" "3-down" "NFL-Ready" RB available, then we had to select him in rd 2 or we would not have gotten him PERIOD! Source: Brad Biggs, Chicago Sun-Times If there was a wow factor to the first Chicago Bears practice Friday, it was rookie running back Matt Forte. The 6-2, 222-pounder looks the part, as real as it gets in shells and shorts. The burst he ran with was legitimate. The Bears selected Forte from Tulane with the 44th pick, passing on a chance to grab quarterbacks Chad Henne of Michigan or Brian Brohm of Louisville, to fix a broken-down running game. Had the Bears skipped him, the Detroit Lions were poised to grab him with the next choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 I don't know about this. Briggs doesn't mention having a source inside the Lions front office, or even w/o specific mention, even say he "hears Detroit" was poised. It sounds more like opinion. Detroit had RB high on their board, and took Kevin Smith in the 3rd. Maybe they would have taken Forte, but I wonder if Briggs isn't assuming a bit much here. I bet many felt we were "poised" to take Brohm or Henne when they fell to us too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Bears 88 Posted May 5, 2008 Report Share Posted May 5, 2008 I don't know about this. Briggs doesn't mention having a source inside the Lions front office, or even w/o specific mention, even say he "hears Detroit" was poised. Source: Brad Biggs, Chicago Sun-Times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 He always asks his "NFC north scout that asked to be unidentified..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 I've been thrilled with everything I have read about this guy. Now with the possible problems of Benson (he hasn't been proved to be guilty of anything yet) I am THRILLED we selected him in rd 2. In an article by Brad Biggs he is stating Detroit was going to select him in rd 2 if we passed on him. So, as said before, if we felt this guy was the best "all-around" "3-down" "NFL-Ready" RB available, then we had to select him in rd 2 or we would not have gotten him PERIOD! Why did I feel like Jerry Angelo alluded to this? I could be wrong, but I feel like this came out of the horses mouth and not Brad Briggs (Lance's older brother ) This could simply be bullshit from Halas Hall to justify an apparant reach. When we drafted Mark Bradley, I thought JA was full of it when asked if Bradley was a reach he said, "Green Bay was trying to trade up to get Mark Bradley." Green Bay did take a WR with their 2nd round pick (Who quickly had a career ending injury taking him out of the NFL.) There was speculation that Hester was a reach in the 2nd round . . . I agree with you Pix: To hell with the reach! If he's our man, he's our man! I was thrilled with the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 Personally, I said prior to the draft that I have changed stances, and now believe reaching slightly for a player you want and/or for a position of need is perfectly acceptable. Some argue we can trade down, but if there is a player you simply love, it is worth taking the risk trading down for the player and losing him? I continue to point to Indy and Freeney. If there is a player you love, who you feel is simply going to be great for your team, get him. If that means slightly reaching, so what. If you are right on your evaluation of the player, a couple years down the road, NO ONE will talk about reaching and only talk about being lucky in getting the player. Who today (other than maybe me:)) remembers or thinks about how much of a reach Freeney was? All that is thought about is Indy having one of the best pass rushers in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 Why did I feel like Jerry Angelo alluded to this? I could be wrong, but I feel like this came out of the horses mouth and not Brad Briggs (Lance's older brother ) This could simply be bullshit from Halas Hall to justify an apparant reach. When we drafted Mark Bradley, I thought JA was full of it when asked if Bradley was a reach he said, "Green Bay was trying to trade up to get Mark Bradley." Green Bay did take a WR with their 2nd round pick (Who quickly had a career ending injury taking him out of the NFL.) There was speculation that Hester was a reach in the 2nd round . . . I agree with you Pix: To hell with the reach! If he's our man, he's our man! I was thrilled with the pick. Forte was not considered a reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 Personally, I said prior to the draft that I have changed stances, and now believe reaching slightly for a player you want and/or for a position of need is perfectly acceptable. Some argue we can trade down, but if there is a player you simply love, it is worth taking the risk trading down for the player and losing him?You are lucky you prefaced with this! LOL I continue to point to Indy and Freeney. If there is a player you love, who you feel is simply going to be great for your team, get him. If that means slightly reaching, so what. If you are right on your evaluation of the player, a couple years down the road, NO ONE will talk about reaching and only talk about being lucky in getting the player. Who today (other than maybe me:)) remembers or thinks about how much of a reach Freeney was? All that is thought about is Indy having one of the best pass rushers in the league. Don't make me school you on the Freeney argument again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 Don't make me school you on the Freeney argument again... class is in session. Freeney was a reach for Indy, and they said as much, but sometimes reaching for the player you want, that fits your system, simply makes sense IMHO. I would also throw this out there. What do we base a "reach" on. We see Kiper and all the rest tell us where they rank a player, but that does not mean it is how Angelo ranks a player. While some feel Forte was a reach, it is all together possible he was the BPA on Angelo's board. Thus, would he be a reach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 I would also throw this out there. What do we base a "reach" on. We see Kiper and all the rest tell us where they rank a player, but that does not mean it is how Angelo ranks a player. While some feel Forte was a reach, it is all together possible he was the BPA on Angelo's board. Thus, would he be a reach? Screw Kiper and the rest of the media. I still contend that unless a GM, coach or former GM comes out and flatly calls it a reach, it is not one. Forte in no way shape or form is or was considered a reach by the majority of this board and the talking heads that provide us entertainment. I'm sure if GM's were polled on the subject, hardly any if any at all would call him a reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 What do we base a "reach" on. We see Kiper and all the rest tell us where they rank a player, but that does not mean it is how Angelo ranks a player. DING. DING. DING. We have a winner! (please excuse the annoying messageboard cliche reply here) No one knows where other teams have a guy on their draft board. If you refuse to pick a guy until he's at his spot on your draft board, he'll be gone half the time. Even "reaches" of a as much as a round are only speculation. ...dude may be gone next pick for all anyone knows...especially if another team "reaches". It's ok to question a reach, but people who get all bent out of shape about it are just trusting the word of draft prognosticators, which is silly. 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.