Controlled Chaos Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/08/rep...chester-taylor/ LAKE FOREST, Ill. (CBS) – A published report says the Bears are planning to release backup running back Chester Taylor before next season. John Mullin of Comcast SportsNet reported that at age 32, Taylor’s arrow is “definitely not pointing up.” Taylor was signed to a four-year, $12.5 million contract in March 2010, and last season averaged 2.38 yards per carry, which Comcast calls “a dreadful mark.” The Bears have already paid him $7 million, and his base salary for 2011 is expected to be $1.275 million, Comcast reported. The Bears have not released an official comment on the subject. What an incredible waste since pretty much all his money was paid upfront. Love this post after the article. For what you geniuses paid Taylor ($7 million) the Pack paid Clay Matthews, Tramon Williams, James Starks, Desmond Bishop, and Sam Shields this year. 5 impact starters vs. a backup running back. If that stat doesn’t get you fired, nothing will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Add Manuseless to the list and Fire this ass... how much guaranteed for these two clowns? and yet no Oline help and no WR... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 For what you geniuses paid Taylor ($7 million) the Pack paid Clay Matthews, Tramon Williams, James Starks, Desmond Bishop, and Sam Shields this year. 5 impact starters vs. a backup running back. If that stat doesn’t get you fired, nothing will. Yeah, that stat gets the person silly enough to compare free agent contracts to drafted-player contracts fired. "Chester Taylor makes more than a 5th round running back who played in 1/4 of the season's games! Scandalous!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yeah, that stat gets the person silly enough to compare free agent contracts to drafted-player contracts fired. "Chester Taylor makes more than a 5th round running back who played in 1/4 of the season's games! Scandalous!" I think he's comparing drafting well and spending well...not contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I think he's comparing drafting well and spending well...not contracts. Considering he compared what the Bears paid Taylor to what "the Pack paid" 5 other guys, I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flea Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 He's already been paid 7 million & woud only cost 1. something net season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 So we struck out on 2 of our 3 big signings from last offseason. Predictable. I still think Chester Taylor is a good back but I guess not in this system. Him and Forte are too similar to each other and I think we had a hard time getting him to mesh well as our 2nd string RB. Both he and Manu were a complete waste of money and am not surprised that both of them will be gone by the beginning of next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 They have already paid him the majority of his money. Unless Bell and Unga look like they are ready to step in, I see no reason to not keep him around for another year. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I don't quite see why we would cut him. He's a classy guy that had a down year, but I'd say I like his track record and think he has something left. Plus, we have him at a bargain rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 It's always easy to look back and question a move, or in this case moves. Yet the Vikings finished well behind us in the standings and we got pretty deep in the playoffs. Big change and for all the complaining about Taylor's and Manu's performance (some valid reasons) given their experience level in the pro's and for Manu in Martz' offense I'm not sure we can say it didn't benefit the team overall. Does anyone know how much Manu contributed to his teammates in film study? Was Chester Taylor better prepare to handle the pass protection assignments than a rookie or other FA RB? On an individual basis it's easy to say these FA signings didn't work out but overall they were significant contributors to our team getting to the NFC Championship. Now a year into Martz' system we don't need that veteran presence as much and can move on to better skills. I agree at this point we might as well keep Taylor into training camp unless there's another offseason bonus money he's due to get. Otherwise I take this as a good sign the Bears are serious about clearing cap space to sign some players. It is also a sign that the accountability they showed with players at the end of last season might stick around this offseason. I think that's a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 They have already paid him the majority of his money. Unless Bell and Unga look like they are ready to step in, I see no reason to not keep him around for another year. Peace Agreed 100%. I don't, however, think that Taylor and Forte are "identical" backs (as was posted previous). They may have similar skill sets but in no way are they identical. For one thing they are obviously not the same size. And what Matrtz tried to do with Taylor later in the season (run up the gut) was what he tried with Forte earlier in the season. Forte is an edge runner and receives from the backfield. Taylor catches too but with his size, or lack of in this case, I think the intent was to get a change of pace mindset with Taylor. Problem being is the OL was unable to get the holes open early on. Hence Taylors lower numbers. I agree with keeping Taylor around. Especially since he's received a fair portion of his money. What's the harm? See if Unga or Bell pan out and move on from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Agreed 100%. I don't, however, think that Taylor and Forte are "identical" backs (as was posted previous). They may have similar skill sets but in no way are they identical. For one thing they are obviously not the same size. And what Matrtz tried to do with Taylor later in the season (run up the gut) was what he tried with Forte earlier in the season. Forte is an edge runner and receives from the backfield. Taylor catches too but with his size, or lack of in this case, I think the intent was to get a change of pace mindset with Taylor. Problem being is the OL was unable to get the holes open early on. Hence Taylors lower numbers. I agree with keeping Taylor around. Especially since he's received a fair portion of his money. What's the harm? See if Unga or Bell pan out and move on from there. Can we get Taylor to bulk up into more of a fullback type?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 So we struck out on 2 of our 3 big signings from last offseason. Predictable. I still think Chester Taylor is a good back but I guess not in this system. Him and Forte are too similar to each other and I think we had a hard time getting him to mesh well as our 2nd string RB. Both he and Manu were a complete waste of money and am not surprised that both of them will be gone by the beginning of next season. It has nothing to do with the system. It has to do with the OL. Far too often he got the ball and was hit in the backfield. I don't care if the dude leaves or stays, but let's be real. The number 1, 2, and 3 reasons why he didn't succeed is the OL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 It has nothing to do with the system. It has to do with the OL. Far too often he got the ball and was hit in the backfield. I don't care if the dude leaves or stays, but let's be real. The number 1, 2, and 3 reasons why he didn't succeed is the OL. Forte had a career-high YPC running behind the same OL. Over the last 9 games of the regular season, Forte averaged 4.9 yards a carry. Taylor averaged 1.6 per carry over the same span. They were facing the same defenses and running behind the same o-line, but Forte was more than three times as productive as Taylor. I'm not saying that the OL didn't suck, because they did. But Forte revealed himself to be a player who can be productive even when the blocking isn't great and defenders are leaking into the backfield. Taylor revealed that he'll get what's blocked for him and nothing more. Like you said, I don't care if Taylor stays or goes. He's a better backup than Kevin Jones or Adrian Peterson or any of the other guys we've had in the past, so I guess there's that. If he wants to stay, though, he needs to renegotiate the rest of his contract on the cheap, so it reflects what he's really bringing to the table. The Bears paid him $7 million this year because they needed to buy a change-of-pace RB since they didn't have the ammo to get one in the draft. If he won't renegotiate, I say cut him loose, draft a short-yardage RB on Day 3, and use the extra cash to shore up the o-line. Or just give it straight to Forte - he's earned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 The only problem with replacing Taylor with a late round rookie (or any rookie) is pass protection. Unga definitely has the size to succeed in this regard and with all this time to learn the offense I would hope he has a good clue what to do. My hope is that the team has enough confidence in Unga to add a RB in the draft without the feeling they must rely on the rookie. Then we at least have a 50-50 shot at having a solid backup for Forte. The Wolfe experiment comes to an end this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Forte had a career-high YPC running behind the same OL. Over the last 9 games of the regular season, Forte averaged 4.9 yards a carry. Taylor averaged 1.6 per carry over the same span. They were facing the same defenses and running behind the same o-line, but Forte was more than three times as productive as Taylor. I'm not saying that the OL didn't suck, because they did. But Forte revealed himself to be a player who can be productive even when the blocking isn't great and defenders are leaking into the backfield. Taylor revealed that he'll get what's blocked for him and nothing more. Like you said, I don't care if Taylor stays or goes. He's a better backup than Kevin Jones or Adrian Peterson or any of the other guys we've had in the past, so I guess there's that. If he wants to stay, though, he needs to renegotiate the rest of his contract on the cheap, so it reflects what he's really bringing to the table. The Bears paid him $7 million this year because they needed to buy a change-of-pace RB since they didn't have the ammo to get one in the draft. If he won't renegotiate, I say cut him loose, draft a short-yardage RB on Day 3, and use the extra cash to shore up the o-line. Or just give it straight to Forte - he's earned it. He is only making 1.275 million a year this year. I believe the vet minimum is 750 k. I wouldn't cut him for 500 k especially given his experience. Chalk up the 7 million we gave him to a safety net for Forte this last year. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Forte had a career-high YPC running behind the same OL. Over the last 9 games of the regular season, Forte averaged 4.9 yards a carry. Taylor averaged 1.6 per carry over the same span. They were facing the same defenses and running behind the same o-line, but Forte was more than three times as productive as Taylor. I'm not saying that the OL didn't suck, because they did. But Forte revealed himself to be a player who can be productive even when the blocking isn't great and defenders are leaking into the backfield. Taylor revealed that he'll get what's blocked for him and nothing more. Like you said, I don't care if Taylor stays or goes. He's a better backup than Kevin Jones or Adrian Peterson or any of the other guys we've had in the past, so I guess there's that. If he wants to stay, though, he needs to renegotiate the rest of his contract on the cheap, so it reflects what he's really bringing to the table. The Bears paid him $7 million this year because they needed to buy a change-of-pace RB since they didn't have the ammo to get one in the draft. If he won't renegotiate, I say cut him loose, draft a short-yardage RB on Day 3, and use the extra cash to shore up the o-line. Or just give it straight to Forte - he's earned it. The system and teams play on a percentage of the equation. I know, FOR A FACT, that Taylor was met in the backfield more often percentage-wise than Forte was. I saw it with my own eyes; the guy got hit after getting the handoff an obscene amount of times. This leads me to one of a few possibilities: 1. The downs and distances in which Taylor was inserted were more likely to be running downs 2. The play calling during the downs were plays in which the OL did not excel 3. The play calling during the downs were incredibly predictable 4. The limited number of carries increased the likelihood of running into one of the horribly busted plays, while Forte's extensive carries decreased this risk (while also providing the possibility of infrequent longer runs) By no means did I crunch any numbers, but I know what my eyes saw. The man had no chance. Do I care what happens with him? No. Backup RBs grow on trees in today's NFL more than any other position with the possible exception of LB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 The only problem with replacing Taylor with a late round rookie (or any rookie) is pass protection. Unga definitely has the size to succeed in this regard and with all this time to learn the offense I would hope he has a good clue what to do. My hope is that the team has enough confidence in Unga to add a RB in the draft without the feeling they must rely on the rookie. Then we at least have a 50-50 shot at having a solid backup for Forte. The Wolfe experiment comes to an end this year. One has to actually conduct ample tests in order for an experiment to exist. The sample size for Wolfe's contributions is insufficient because he's never been given a shot. Odd then that he seems to break plays fairly frequently when he does get his chance. You're right...he'll probably be gone, but nobody in Chicago knows what they did or didn't have in Wolfe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 One has to actually conduct ample tests in order for an experiment to exist. The sample size for Wolfe's contributions is insufficient because he's never been given a shot. Odd then that he seems to break plays fairly frequently when he does get his chance. You're right...he'll probably be gone, but nobody in Chicago knows what they did or didn't have in Wolfe. I agreed with that in the past and there's still some validity to the argument. However, after this many years we have to accept the coaches decisions that he just doesn't have it. The bottom of the roster is best stocked with a veteran who has proven they can get it done, even if for just a few games, or a young guy hungry and working hard to prove he belongs. Wolfe hasn't proven he belongs so it's time for the next guy up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 I agreed with that in the past and there's still some validity to the argument. However, after this many years we have to accept the coaches decisions that he just doesn't have it. The bottom of the roster is best stocked with a veteran who has proven they can get it done, even if for just a few games, or a young guy hungry and working hard to prove he belongs. Wolfe hasn't proven he belongs so it's time for the next guy up. You mean like how Aromashodu deserved to sit on the bench all year? Let's face it, Lovie has a history of poor personnel moves...and the fact that Wolfe could never get a legit chance when the RBs in front of him weren't exactly tearing up the league says more about Lovie and staff than it does about Wolfe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Great points... Your last segment says it all... The system and teams play on a percentage of the equation. I know, FOR A FACT, that Taylor was met in the backfield more often percentage-wise than Forte was. I saw it with my own eyes; the guy got hit after getting the handoff an obscene amount of times. This leads me to one of a few possibilities: 1. The downs and distances in which Taylor was inserted were more likely to be running downs 2. The play calling during the downs were plays in which the OL did not excel 3. The play calling during the downs were incredibly predictable 4. The limited number of carries increased the likelihood of running into one of the horribly busted plays, while Forte's extensive carries decreased this risk (while also providing the possibility of infrequent longer runs) By no means did I crunch any numbers, but I know what my eyes saw. The man had no chance. Do I care what happens with him? No. Backup RBs grow on trees in today's NFL more than any other position with the possible exception of LB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 You mean like how Aromashodu deserved to sit on the bench all year? Aromashodu did deserve to sit on the bench all year. That wasn't a personnel decision Lovie made, it was one that Martz made. Aromashodu wouldn't or couldn't play in the slot, when Martz lines up his #2-#3 WRs both in the slot and outside. How many times did we see Hester and Bennett motion into the slot pre-snap? Knox was basically the only guy who mostly stayed outside the numbers. If DA's only going to play outside, that means he's got to take Knox's job as the #1 receiver. He didn't step up to take that job and he apparently didn't learn to play slot receiver, which means he's only going in if there's an injury or to give Knox a breather. Also, remember that Aromashodu got his shot to prove himself in Week 1 this year. Cutler targeted him non-stop and he dropped what, 3 or 4 passes including a touchdown? Cutler threw to him 10 times: he only caught 5 and dropped 4 more that he could have caught. He had a similar game against Baltimore last season: Cutler threw 10 passes his way, and Aromashodu only came down with 2 of them. If a guy can only play the #1 receiver role and can't consistently get it done when he gets a #1 receiver's workload, what use is he? Last offseason I was really hoping that Aromashodu would convince everyone that he could be a #1, but this offseason I wouldn't be surprised if they cut him. 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.