Thread: A Pro Matt Forte Article.......We Could Use a Little Balance...........

Even though I'm opposed to some of what Scoop Jackson says here I still felt this was a good article worthy of discussion. We've posted several that promote the Bears side so it's only fair we include one that promotes Forte's side.

That said I'll list and characterize my position as far as this article goes.

First of all let's take his story about the sous chef making good on his own. The reason this example doesn't apply in this case is because the chef is not represented by a union that agreed that he could be bound to remain with his present employer if that employer so chooses although with a significant increase in salary.

The NFLPA had a fair shot at negotiating franchise tags out of this most recent contract but chose to not even put them on the agenda. The players as a whole, Matt Forte included, asked the NFLPA to be their representative and bargaining arm. Players can't pick and choose how they want to be represented on an individual basis. The NFLPA agreed to allow NFL teams to use a franchise tag on one player per year. It may seem unfair as far as that player establishing his true market value but it is what it is. There is absolutely no arguable position there.

The other issue that I have a problem with is that Jackson is behaving like a players age shouldn't come into the picture in negotiations. Well it has to. The productivity of most RB's begins to slide after their 6th or 7th season. Age and the cumulative beating their bodies take combine to hit at the same time. There are any number of cases where that's exactly what happened shortly after they got a big contract from their team.

So the players decline begins and 2 years into a five year deal he's all but through and anything but the feature back the team paid for. The problem is if they cut him they need to roll up 3 years worth of his amortized SB all in one year and not only does that create millions of dollars of "dead cap space" they have to pay his replacement as well. Currently teams have taken to paying smaller signing bonuses and have gone back to "back loading contracts". This is something the Bears have avoided.

So Jackson gives examples of only the 4 highest paid contracts given out in the past year. In all fairness at the very least he should include lower paid ones like Frank Gore and Marshawn Lynch. The ones for AP and CJ should be removed. They're outliers due to the fact that they are considered the two top RB's in football. Once that done what the Bears seem to be offering falls more in line with the average of these deals.

One other factor that Jackson fails to mention because it's likely he never even researched it for this article is this. None of those players will ever see 100% of the dollars in those contracts. Once the guarantees are paid out and their inflated salaries kick in counting 100% against the cap those deals will either need to be renegotiated or the player will become a "cap casualty". I would still stick with my belief that because the Bears refuse to "back load" deals Matt Forte would stand to get 100% of his money over a 4 year deal.

OK, so that's my gripes with the article but I do admit he does make some reasonable points.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

The next CBA is going to have to look into the positions situation. If the best rb's are only going get 1 top end contract, if they're lucky 2 total then 4yr rookie deals and 2 FT's is a harsh buzz.

But the Bears are playing by the rules, and by those rules I don't have a problem w/what they want to do; I also dont have a problem w/what Forte is doing for the same reason though, the Rules are really slanted against the RB position so if he has to do things that fans or the team doesn't like, well kinda have to some time. I still think he should have pulled this stunt last year after the FT tag was off the table. That thing just muddies up the RB talks. But he couldn't have been asking for 20+ mil either.

The problem is the current CBA doesn't expire for 9 more years. I think Jackson has some valid points here but I also believe he glosses over some important factors as well.

"But then again this is business, and we are dealing with an organization that underpaid -- and at times undervalued -- Walter Payton."


Bad journalism. This is the kind of crap that is continuously perpetuated by the media surrounding the Chicago Bears. Every year over the last decade, they spend close to the cap without getting themselves into trouble. However, lets go back to the way the Great Walter Payton was treated by the Bears. When he was drafted, the Chicago Bears paid him a 125,000 signing bonus. Not a lot by today's standards, but at that time IT WAS THE HIGHEST EVER PAID. Fast forward to 1983, Walter payton signed a contract with the Chicago Bears that included a lifetime annuity of nearly 1/4 million Dollars, that combined with his annual salary was again, THE HIGHEST IN LEAGUE HISTORY. In 1988, Walter Payton was asked and accepted a position of the Chicago Bears Board of Directors, very rare for players at that time.

So I ask you "Scoop", what part of any of that suggests that the Chicago Bears underpaid or undervalued Walter Payton? When a part of your story is found to lack credibility, it jeopardizes all the rest. That said, I still like Matt Forte, and I wish him all the best, continuing to hope that "his best" done in a Bears Uniform, but not willing to risk multiple other parts of the team to do so.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

THey aren't saying they are cheap 4db, they are saying they have a history of undervaluing/underpaying the RB position.

Since this is a Pro Forte thread, lets go ahead and point out that multiple team mates have supported him and the players rated him the 33rd best player, and the 7th best rb in the league. I think it's a safe assumption that if he had stayed healthy it would have been a few spots higher.

Soul, of course he glosses over other issues; he's trying to make a case FOR Forte, it's meant to be one sided, like the previous article that only took td's into account regarding him and McCoy was meant to be one sided. I know it's 9yrs down the road, but i believe either side can opt out in 5yrs.

I understand. But my contradictory point still stands regardless of the semantics. In fact, I would suggest that the Chicago Bears have, in fact, OVER valued the position in a PASSING league for far too long and it has been to their detriment. The Bears have always been a Running Back/Linebacker team and until now, they have always placed more value on Running backs than they have on Wide Receivers. As far as underpaying them, I just pointed out the one very famous RB that Scoop cited and offered up evidence that his citation is incorrect, and even opposite.

With all that said, there is a lot to be Pro-Forte about. The guy is a gamer and I really like the way he plays. His many strengths far exceed his weaknesses and I'm ready for this to be resolved. Even for a guy like me who is an open advocate for the team, I would really prefer he get paid in a manner that makes both sides happy.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

THey aren't saying they are cheap 4db, they are saying they have a history of undervaluing/underpaying the RB position.

Since this is a Pro Forte thread, lets go ahead and point out that multiple team mates have supported him and the players rated him the 33rd best player, and the 7th best rb in the league. I think it's a safe assumption that if he had stayed healthy it would have been a few spots higher.

Soul, of course he glosses over other issues; he's trying to make a case FOR Forte, it's meant to be one sided, like the previous article that only took td's into account regarding him and McCoy was meant to be one sided. I know it's 9yrs down the road, but i believe either side can opt out in 5yrs.

I don't feel that the Bears underpaid Walter. I remember KC making him an offer one year while he was between Bears contracts but he turned them down. He also had the only million dollar year contract the Bears had ever given out up to that time. He was definitely the highest paid player on the Bears team so f that's being under paid or under valued as a RB what would be over valued?

Ric I know he's trying to pump up Forte's side of this. That's why I posted it. The Bears can't get away with sticking all the bad out there in the press without some balance in favor of the other side. But despite that it doesn't mean I can't critique him on his article. To be honest I didn't find much wrong with it except those couple of things I singled out.

I want them to come to an agreement. I really don't want Forte playing under that tag anymore than he does. But there comes a point when you have to wonder who's being unreasonable here. The Bears have a pretty good reputation for re-signing there own FA and in other instances extending contracts before they expire.

Over the past 5 or 6 years or so the only guy I can remember them having a contract dispute with was Briggs and that was because he was asking for a ridiculous amount of money. So they tagged him and tried to work something out with him but when they couldn't come to terms they let him enter FA and what happened? He found out he wasn't worth quite what he thought, or what Rosenhaus as telling him he was worth, and he came back and signed the Bears offer.

I completely disagree that the Bears have undervalued RB or any other position on the team. If they had there would have been many more contract disputes like Forte's.