Thread: At Least One Reason Why Forte Isn't Worth LeSean McCoy's Price.............

I posted this a in couple of other threads as well but thought it deserved to be highlighted since we've been talking about this a bit over the past week.

I've always said that one of Forte's drawbacks as a complete RB is that he is not a good short yardage or goaline runner. Now LeSean McCoy may be exceptional in comparison but one of the things you get the big bucks for in MLB is hitting home runs and in the NFL the equivalent to that is putting the ball in the end zone. I that regard Matt Forte simply doesn't stack up against the best.

It may also be worth it to note that McCoy is also a smaller back than Forte. Once of the reasons we spent $2.5 mil on MB III last years why we signed Michael Bush for 4 years at $3.5 mil per year is the fact that Matt Forte doesn't find the end zone often enough and Bush excels at it.

If he's upset because Bush may have gotten some of his money he needs to wake up and realize that he'll also get most if not all of his carries when the ball is inside the ten or we have a 3rd and two. Matt Forte is just not a good short yardage back.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

really, so being 45% of your teams Offensive yardage isn't productive enough? .

This is the part that gets me every damn time. People talk about him being 45% of the offense because he is that damn good (and maybe he is) and fail to mention that outside of him the Bears had no other options that were a threat at all. They had just one WR (half the season they had no real WR threat when Bennett was out) who was any good. He was 45% of the offense out of necessity.

Do you honestly think that if the Bears had any legit threat on offense besides him that he would be 45% of the offense? Because I don't. Watch this year, he will be lucky to be a third if not less.

McCoy>Forte and is younger. He is not worth what McCoy got.

Add in that teams are going to pay you for what you WILL do, not what you HAVE done. So why pay someone to be nearly half your offense when he wont even get close to that percentage again?

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Add in that teams are going to pay you for what you WILL do, not what you HAVE done. So why pay someone to be nearly half your offense when he wont even get close to that percentage again?

Thanks, Benji. This pretty much sums it up. Now sit down, sign the deal and let's move on. Please!

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

This is the part that gets me every damn time. People talk about him being 45% of the offense because he is that damn good (and maybe he is) and fail to mention that outside of him the Bears had no other options that were a threat at all. They had just one WR (half the season they had no real WR threat when Bennett was out) who was any good. He was 45% of the offense out of necessity.

Do you honestly think that if the Bears had any legit threat on offense besides him that he would be 45% of the offense? Because I don't. Watch this year, he will be lucky to be a third if not less.

McCoy>Forte and is younger. He is not worth what McCoy got.

Add in that teams are going to pay you for what you WILL do, not what you HAVE done. So why pay someone to be nearly half your offense when he wont even get close to that percentage again?

Benj, that's my point HE HAS NO ONE ELSE, every team knows he's getting the ball, and yet he's still the reason for the Offfense. Again swtich McCoy and Forte and the only thing that changes is Forte get's more big plays and TD's and McCoy is getting less TD's and less big plays; why b/c McCoy has no one around him to keep those D players honest, they crowd the hell out of the line. Now I'll admit, Forte doesn't have 20 td's, and McCoy has more then 4 td's. But it's not they are closer to even. But the big plays and yards are even more of a disparagement in favor of Forte.

And I know TD's matter, I'm not discounting them; but when people talk about Walter, or Gayle or Sanders or Emmitt, they don't talk about their TD's or their First downs, they talk about the yards they gained. It's important it's what keeps the team moving on O, give's the D a rest, and allows the team to eventually put points on the board.

JJ they have to give a damn what you did in the past, they have no idea what you are going to do in the future if they don't look at your past performance. If they didn't look at the past no one would get anything other then bottom end contracts.

Originally Posted by BigBadPapaBear

TDs make a big difference. I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated watching the Bears kick FGs because Forte couldn't punch it in. Sometimes TDs are the difference between getting the real big money. Percentage of offense isn't as big as you think. You wouldn't a 1600yd WR who gets 15TDs a season the same as a 1600yd WR who only gets in the end zone 2-3xs a year.

And the fact that he doesn't put it in the end-zone is huge , when you consider something I heard on NFL Network about a week ago which is this : the avg margin of victory in most games is 4 points. That equates exactly to the difference between td's vs. field goals.

Yes , he does a good job moving the chains - but he leaves you standing at the altar.

This O is going to be better this year. They're all going to make each other look better. He'd be a fool to sit any of it out and not share in the spoils. I don't know if it's his agent or his ego that's driving this stupidity ( though I suspect it's some of both ) - but if he doesn't get realistic and wake up .... he's gonna have regrets.