LT2_3

The precise details haven't been disclosed, but the consensus opinion of some of the talking heads come off that the Bears had raised their offer on guaranteed money and feel they are still about $10 million apart. Their initial offer was $14 mill guaranteed, so that means that Forte is expecting around $27-$30 million guaranteed. It's really speculative, but it comes from a few different sources. As I've said, Forte needs to realize that he has no leverage and is being unrealistic with his current demands. I, for one, am sick of hearing about it. He needs to either lower his expectations and cut a deal, or stop talking to the media about it.

Don't get me wrong guys, I love Forte and wouldn't trade Forte for any of those guys (except AP of course). The idea that they would be limiting his carries at the goal line is kinda silly considering it wouldn't affect his pay under the Franchise tag for the next couple years. I hope you guys realize that the context for bringing this up is in regards to his value in a new contract. The point is that if people are going to point at his stats like % of offense, then they should look at ALL the stats. While he's been great between the 20s, he hasn't taken more than 3 ALL THE WAY even with the ridiculous number of touches that he gets. The bottom line is that Forte should temper his expectations if he expects a long term deal. I think his contract should be based on the 5 year $43 mil contract with $21 mil guaranteed that DeAngelo Williams signed prior to the season with a few minor tweaks to represent the fact that Forte is still under contract and can be franchised while Williams was a complete free agent at the time. The major obstacle in these negotiations is that Forte seems to think that he deserves about $30 mil in guaranteed money. He needs to get over that unless he's happy with getting the franchise tag for the next 2 years and getting no money upfront. People say "Pay the man!" and I agree with the sentiment. However, it should be noted that Forte is being ridiculously unreasonable with what he's asking for.

Ok - I'll do the top half of the league. Now keep in mind that this is purely rushing TDs and doesn't include receiving TDs - but that's what you asked for - to look at "TD stealers" Minnesota Vikings 11 A Peterson 9 P Harvin 1 D McNabb 1 Carolina Panthers 10 C Newton 7 J Stewart 2 D Williams 1 Houston Texans 10 A Foster 5 M Schaub 2 B Tate 2 Oakland Raiders 10 D McFadden 4 M Bush 3 D Moore 1 J Campbell 2 Philadelphia Eagles 10 L McCoy 9 R Brown 1 Atlanta Falcons 9 M Turner 7 M Ryan 2 New Orleans Saints 9 M Ingram 3 D Sproles 2 J Collins 2 P Thomas 2 New York Giants 9 A Bradshaw 5 B Jacobs 3 E Manning 1 San Diego Chargers 9 M Tolbert 4 R Matthews 3 C Brinkley 1 P Rivers 1 Arizona Cardinals 8 C Wells 7 A Smith 1 Baltimore Ravens 8 R Rice 6 R Williams 1 J Flacco 1 Buffalo Bills 8 F Jackson 6 C Spiller 1 B Smith 1 San Francisco 49ers 8 F Gore 5 A Dixon 1 K Hunter 1 A Smith 1 Chicago Bears 6 M Barber 4 M Forte 2 New England Patriots 6 B Green-Ellis 5 S Ridley 1 New York Jets 6 S Greene 2 M Sanchez 2 L Tomlinson 1 J Conner 1 So, in the top half of the league, there are only 3 instances where the player with the most rushing TDs isn't also the leading rusher: Carolina with Newton/Williams, San Diego with Tolbert/Matthews, and Bears Barber/Forte. It's not very prevalent, but it shows that at the most, Forte's contract should be based closer to DeAngleo Williams' contract and even then you have to question whether Williams is worth the deal he got based on his performance currently.

I think most of it is that he's a big back that runs upright. When things get compressed down by the goal line, he doesn't do as well as smaller guys that run lower to the ground. That's why Barber gets most of the short yardage carries.

I was reading something somewhere and the author (as a smart ass) asked what percentage our offense Forte provided. As a smart ass back, I asked if the guy was asking about yardage or scoring. That got me to thinking that since Forte is asking for elite money and I've always felt that his drawback as a RB was that he doesn't make it into the end zone as often as other backs. So this sent me off on a quest: to see how Forte's percentage of team scoring vs. other RBs in the league. I calculated this by going to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ and scrolled down to the bottom of each team page, and calculated the number of points scored by each RB as a percentage of the teams' total scoring. Now this isn't a perfect comparison because some teams share their RB load, and some of these guys have had injuries. That being said, Forte hasn't missed a game so his percentage should be directly proportional. Here's what I found: A Peterson 35% Vikes L McCoy 33% Eagles S Jackson 31% Rams R Rice 23% Ravens M Turner 22% Falcons M Lynch 20% Seahawks A Bradshaw 19% Giants M Tolbert 18% Chargers M Jones-Drew 18% Jaguars D McFadden 16% Raiders F Gore 15% 49ers F Jackson 15% Bills A Foster 15% Texans W McGahee 15% Broncos B Green-Ellis 14% Patriots R Mendenhall 12% Steelers D Sproles 12% Saints L Blount 12% Bucs P Hillis 10% Browns M Forte 9% Bears I think it says something (what I don't know) that Forte is below guys like Foster, Hillis, and McFadden that have been injured, and that he's also below guys that split time like Sproles. Just something I thought I'd put out there

Ah. Well you have an answer now.

Actually they don't. Brady's contract is structured much, much differently. For instance, Brady only makes $9.75 mil this year while Manning is making roughly $24 mil this year. Brady's numbers don't get much bigger until 2013 when the cap will be much bigger too. I will say this though, Fitz' contract wouldn't be too bad for a QB, but with their needing 2 new OL (according to someone in this thread) and it's dependence on the QB to get the ball in the same hemisphere so he can catch it, it just looks like a waste of money until they get those things.

That's an excellent point. Although I'm not sure how many teams would be interested in the Fitz contract. Granted, the percentage would get smaller over time, but tying up 9% of your cap on one guy hasn't proven to be an effective way to build a solid team. Just look at the Colts without Manning this year.

Assuming that you can make the case that Arizona might consider dealing Fitz, what makes you think that there wouldn't be a complete feeding frenzy in which the Bears simply can't offer as good a deal as another team? I can't see us offering more than one 1st rounder, and ours is going to be late in the round - along with corresponding later picks in each round. So I suppose I could buy a possible scenario where the Cards deal Fitz, but I can't see a scenario where the Bears make the deal over another team - and I can't imagine the Bears taking on Fitz' contract either. And by saying that, I'm not saying the Bears are cheap, I'm saying his contract is that ridiculous. Just going back to the Fitz contract again, Arizona dealing him one year after signing him to a new deal doesn't make sense. Here's how it breaks down: 2011 $10 mil signing bonus, $8 mil roster bonus, $2 mil salary, and $250k workout bonus 2012 $5 mil salary, $6 mil roster bonus 2013 $5 mil salary, $10 mil option bonus 2014 $12.75 mil salary 2015 $8 mil salary, $8 mil roster bonus 2016 $15 mil salary 2017 $14.75 salary 2017 $14.75 salary I don't see how the Cards would even consider dealing him after they gave him so much upfront and his annual cost drops to only $11 mil for next season. I could see them dealing him after 2012 to avoid the next big payment, but not after the first big payment before a season that they have already partially paid for in advance.

Oh. There's a lot time between now and then. I also can't imagine Arizona deciding to unload him one year after signing him to such a huge deal not to mention only wanting one first rounder if they did consider trading him. If they were to unload him in an effort to rebuild, I would think they would be looking for at least two firsts and a third.

The main reason it wouldn't work is because the trade deadline has already passed.

Sure. I agree that it makes sense to get a deal done before the deadline for using cap space this year, I'm just questioning whether they are actually discussing anything right now during the bye week. The way Wesson started the thread, it seemed like he was quoting something. I'd just like to know what he was quoting because I've found nothing similar from the usual suspects that would be in a position to have this sort of inside info. I HOPE they can get something done, but it's looking like Forte is going to want more than the Bears can justify right now when the Franchise tag is a less expensive alternative.

Seriously - Linky? Nothing in the trib, nothing in the times, and PFW says there are no negotiations going on currently. I'd like to believe it, but need corroboration.

Linky?

The problem with Harris, is that he was still injured, but claimed he wasn't. I could tell he was still injured just by watching him. The problem is that it's hard for a player to rehab an injury if they claim it doesn't exist. The Bears benched him - presumably because he was injured - and Harris responded by asking for the ability to seek a trade. The Bears granted it to him. They did him a favor by giving him the freedom he had requested just the week before. I can't see how the team could possibly have done anything wrong by doing what the player asked. As for who to blame for the Lions loss, you are correct that it was a team issue. However, you can blame the safety that was out of position for the deep pass to Johnson, and not in his lane for the long run by Best. What do you know? That was Harris on both plays.

True enough. They did that after putting him on the reserved/left team list. Ya know, I hate it when that happens.

Excellent point. Even that being said, the Saints put Kreutz on the reserve/left squad list which means he can't play for even the Saints this year.

Just curious, but what are you willing to give up in trade to NO to get his rights - for a guy that has lost his desire, has significantly diminished skills, and can only backup at center? I have no problem cutting Omiyale, but considering that Spencer makes a better backup center and we have other guys that can fill in a guard, is he really worth a roster spot? And again, what do you think NO would require as compensation to a team that might end up challenging them for a wild card spot in the playoffs? I'm assuming that you forgot about the Saints retaining his rights?

Ummmmm I have no clue on who any of these guys are and spelling names correctly makes it easier to look them up for those of us that don't follow college football.

Where was it that he was in an Air Coryell system? I've double checked his profile, and I can't find anywhere they used that system where he was a coach or a key player. Denny Green was a Bill Walsh disciple. He's never coached under the Air Coryell system until he was here, and his only HC he played in it under was Joe Gibbs - which favors more power running than the pass happy version of Martz - for ONE season in 1989 when he caught one pass for two yards. I get that you hate Martz and want to see him gone, but trying to suggest that Tice would have a clue how to run this offense taking over in the middle of the season is ridiculous. He's never coached it anywhere else, and he had 2 receiving yards in it as a player. #whachutalkinboutwillis

I didn't even read past your headline - ummmm no it's not. Not during the season.

I would also add that the door swings both ways. The guys that Kreutz may be able to give a scouting report on, will also be able to give scouting to the guys that haven't practiced against Kreutz (Okoye, Melton to certain extent) to explain HIS tendencies. Lemonj - as for Kreutz not being familiar with a Roach called defense, I'm pretty sure that those calls are radioed in from the sideline, and would also add that Kreutz doesn't have any experience playing against the defense in game situations either.

I think you're wrong in your premise. The bottom of the roster is for developing players. Also, teams can't afford to have proven vets at all positions. Not only would the cap not allow it, but you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face regarding the future. Proven vets willing to sit on the bench aren't going to help you in the coming years when your current starters retire. As for the guys you mentioned..... Enderle -- I think that we can probably sneak him on the practice squad after a few weeks, but we learned our lesson about a drafted QB getting sniped during final cutdowns last year with LeFevour. Reed and Addison -- Those guys both looked REALLY good from what I saw in the preseason. I wouldn't get too hung up over them being UDFAs because I personally think that the draft has become more about picking guys based more on when teams think other teams will draft them instead of how much they can help your team. Not all players fit for all schemes. I'm not sure how many teams run a Tampa-2 penetrating D-line scheme. These guys wouldn't fit on teams that run a 3-4 or on 4-3 teams like Jauron used to run. That being said, after their preseason showing, these guys would get sniped by teams that DO need the same type of player. Dicicco - He has PLENTY of room to improve, but didn't look too incredibly awful. Venable -- He is good at special teams AND I thought he looked decent for a UDFA. Adams -- Considering he's a backup fullback, backup TE, and plays special teams - This one's just a no brainer. And btw - Dez looked like crap in preseason. Sanz -- Did you even watch the preseason? He won't play? I think he certainly will. His playing time with the 1s increased as the preseason progressed. Martz AND Cutler like him. He'll play. You might not be wrong about these guys, but you are wrong about the type of players at the bottom of a roster - any NFL roster.

Wright was a 3rd round pick btw.

Yeah - What do some people think this is? Madden or baseball?