Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Matt Forte is not bad
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=37647		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Was the line any better last year? I don't really think it's much different.

That is what I don't get. Everyone believed getting Jay Cutler would improve our running game but at least so far it seems to have had the opposite effect.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
So now it's Cutler's fault that the running game sucks. You are hilarious.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Hatchetman wrote:
So now it's Cutler's fault that the running game sucks. You are hilarious.

Where did I say that?

What about my post wasn't accurate?

I'm not saying it's Jay Cutler's fault that the running game sucks but I am saying that the addition of Jay Cutler has coincided with a steep drop in the running game. This is a fact.

I wasn't saying Cutler was the cause.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
you said getting jay cutler has had the opposite effect of improving our running game.
Author:  crosscheck [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
So now it's Cutler's fault that the running game sucks. You are hilarious.

Where did I say that?

What about my post wasn't accurate?

I'm not saying it's Jay Cutler's fault that the running game sucks but I am saying that the addition of Jay Cutler has coincided with a steep drop in the running game. This is a fact.

I wasn't saying Cutler was the cause.

You weren't incorect with your statment, you were incorrect in correlating that the running game has suffered because of the presence of cutler.
Quote:
but at least so far it seems to have had the opposite effect.

cutler being there has nothing to do with a lack of running the ball. The o-line is the reason. if it was any other quarterback, the running game would still be bad.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Hatchetman wrote:
you said getting jay cutler has had the opposite effect of improving our running game.

Yes. That is true. That is a fact.

Was the running game better last year?

To me, it looks like the team doesn't run as well. Most people believe we would run better because of Jay Cutler. I'm seeing that we aren't running any better.

I'm not laying the blame at Jay Cutler. There are many other potential explanations. Some of them involve Jay Cutler such as our transition to a more pass happy offense and others don't such as a decline in Matt Forte's ability.

The idea that Jay Cutlers addition would improve the running game seems to be false through three games. Do you disagree?
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
crosscheck wrote:
You weren't incorect with your statment, you were incorrect in correlating that the running game has suffered because of the presence of cutler.

Again, getting Jay Cutler was supposed to improve the running game. The running game has not improved and has gotten worse. Is it because of Jay Cutler? Maybe. Maybe not. However, the facts are that getting Jay Cutler has not improved the running game. I don't see how it's incorrect. If anything, it's simply a case of disagreement with my opinion.
crosscheck wrote:
cutler being there has nothing to do with a lack of running the ball. The o-line is the reason. if it was any other quarterback, the running game would still be bad.

Isn't this an opinion? Our play calling has been different this year. Our offensive strategy has been different this year. They changed because of Jay Cutler. The offense has been better at passing and not as good at running. The O-line is an issue.

I'm just saying that Culters addition could be part of the problem. You are saying that there is no chance that Cutler has anything to do with it. My stance seems more likely as I would say the lack of running game is a problem with many reasons behind it.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
the opposite of improve is worsen.

False statement: The acquisition of Jay Cutler has worsened the Bear's running game.

True statement: The Bear's running game is worse this year and Jay Cutler is the the Bears quarterback this year.
Author:  enigma [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
The Bears have 3 new starters on the offensive line...Pace, Omiyale and Williams.

Maybe the line was better last year, at least in run blocking.

But there were a couple times yesterday where I thought after Forte got thru the hole there was room outside but Forte kept going inside and got minimal yardage.

The offensive line is the main problem, but Forte, IMO, is not totally blameless. He hasn't made too many people miss or shown a burst.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Hatchetman wrote:
the opposite of improve is worsen.

False statement: The acquisition of Jay Cutler has worsened the Bear's running game.

True statement: The Bear's running game is worse this year and Jay Cutler is the the Bears quarterback this year.

No matter how hard you try to change what I said you can't.

Here is what I said.
"Everyone believed getting Jay Cutler would improve our running game"
-People thought we would be better running the ball because defenses wouldn't be able to put 8 men in the box and stack up against the run.
"but at least so far it seems to have had the opposite effect."
-The Bears running game has been worse this year. Therefore, the idea that it would improve has been false and it has worsened.

What was so wrong about my original statement?

If you think that Jay Cutler had nothing to do with the drastic decline go for it but I have a feeling that the major changes to our offense have at least had some impact on it.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
why would you assume the least likely cause?
Author:  crosscheck [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
If anything, it's simply a case of disagreement with my opinion.

I can agree with that.

Quote:
Isn't this an opinion? Our play calling has been different this year. Our offensive strategy has been different this year. They changed because of Jay Cutler. The offense has been better at passing and not as good at running. The O-line is an issue.

Yes this is my opinion. is the bears play-calling different? There have been more throws, but I think that has to do with the bears trying to catch up to their opponents in each of the first three games, and not a change in play-calling.

Quote:
I'm just saying that Culters addition could be part of the problem. You are saying that there is no chance that Cutler has anything to do with it. My stance seems more likely as I would say the lack of running game is a problem with many reasons behind it.

While I think you're wrong and that I'm right, I still don't think it's possible to know the direct effect that cutler has on the running game other than looking at the lack of running attems versus pass attemps, but like I said before, that would be misleading because of the types of games they were in;comeing from behind
Author:  Darkside [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Forte has no holes to run thru. Pace has been disappointing at best. Krutz looks 50. The line was better last year.
This is why they've had the success they've had with screens.
Also, they're running right into the damn blitz too much.
Author:  Brick [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Hatchetman wrote:
why would you assume the least likely cause?

I assume multiple causes, one of which is that Jay Cutler and our new offensive strategy has had a negative impact on our running game. That's not exactly a crazy theory.

My original statement could be about Ron Turner and his desire to become a more pass happy offense. Even with that, getting Jay Cutler would have had a negative impact on our running game. It's not his fault. He's doing what he is supposed to do but an unintended side effect of his acquisition is that the concentration on how well we run has disappeared. Some may even say that is a good thing.

It is rarely as simple as a single reason but all I know is that the expectation of our running game to improve after we got Jay Cutler has not come to reality.
Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Didn't Forte average 3.9 yards per carry last year? That's hardly the 2nd coming of Walter Payton. Yeah he had a lot of total yards since he was a primary target of Orton's dink & dunk passing, but I didn't see anything which made me think he was anything but an average running back.
Author:  shakes [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
When a RB has a crap offensive line or has to face 8 man fronts is when you find out exactly how good a RB is. I think its pretty obvious Forte is a solid system back, a guy who can thrive when placed into a great situation. However, put him in a bad situation and he looks very mediocre at best.

Great RB's overcome bad offensive lines. Barry Sanders overcame an entire career of bad O-line play and 8-9 man fronts.

Emmitt Smith, on the other hand, never experienced even one minute of success without the benefit of playing with a phenomenal O-line and equally phenomenal passing attack.
Author:  fhuebner [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
I have been a Josh Beekman guy since he was drafted.

I think the Bears should give him a chance replacing Omiyale...but they won't because of the money they paid him.

Beekman is a better and quicker pulling guard than either Omiyale or Garza, and is being wasted as he waits for Kruetz to retire to take over at center.
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Beekman is probably better than Omiyale, but that's not saying much. We saw what he could do last year.
Author:  Bucky Chris [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Having a debate with a buddy regarding Forte's 'fumble' near the goal line:


In short, did Matt do the right thing by trying to reach for the tuddy?
Author:  lamar hoyt's burrito [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
shakes wrote:
When a RB has a crap offensive line or has to face 8 man fronts is when you find out exactly how good a RB is. I think its pretty obvious Forte is a solid system back, a guy who can thrive when placed into a great situation. However, put him in a bad situation and he looks very mediocre at best.

Great RB's overcome bad offensive lines. Barry Sanders overcame an entire career of bad O-line play and 8-9 man fronts.

Emmitt Smith, on the other hand, never experienced even one minute of success without the benefit of playing with a phenomenal O-line and equally phenomenal passing attack.


But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been able to accomplish greatness. He can't be penalized because Dallas knew how to scout & draft.
Author:  Shakes the Clown [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Chris in St. Charles wrote:
Having a debate with a buddy regarding Forte's 'fumble' near the goal line:


In short, did Matt do the right thing by trying to reach for the tuddy?

If they would have called it a fumble NO!
Author:  spmack [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
fhuebner wrote:
I have been a Josh Beekman guy since he was drafted.

I think the Bears should give him a chance replacing Omiyale...but they won't because of the money they paid him.

Beekman is a better and quicker pulling guard than either Omiyale or Garza, and is being wasted as he waits for Kruetz to retire to take over at center.


Fred you have more logins than Puckhead Hoffy.
Author:  Regular Reader [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
lamar hoyt's burrito wrote:
shakes wrote:
When a RB has a crap offensive line or has to face 8 man fronts is when you find out exactly how good a RB is. I think its pretty obvious Forte is a solid system back, a guy who can thrive when placed into a great situation. However, put him in a bad situation and he looks very mediocre at best.

Great RB's overcome bad offensive lines. Barry Sanders overcame an entire career of bad O-line play and 8-9 man fronts.

Emmitt Smith, on the other hand, never experienced even one minute of success without the benefit of playing with a phenomenal O-line and equally phenomenal passing attack.


But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been able to accomplish greatness. He can't be penalized because Dallas knew how to scout & draft.


Emmitt Smith -- most overrated player in NFL history(with apologies to Joe Namath)?
Author:  shakes [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Regular Reader wrote:
lamar hoyt's burrito wrote:
shakes wrote:
When a RB has a crap offensive line or has to face 8 man fronts is when you find out exactly how good a RB is. I think its pretty obvious Forte is a solid system back, a guy who can thrive when placed into a great situation. However, put him in a bad situation and he looks very mediocre at best.

Great RB's overcome bad offensive lines. Barry Sanders overcame an entire career of bad O-line play and 8-9 man fronts.

Emmitt Smith, on the other hand, never experienced even one minute of success without the benefit of playing with a phenomenal O-line and equally phenomenal passing attack.


But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been able to accomplish greatness. He can't be penalized because Dallas knew how to scout & draft.


Emmitt Smith -- most overrated player in NFL history(with apologies to Joe Namath)?



Yep, without a doubt. No need to apologize to Namath, he wasn't half as overrated as Emmit Smith.

Emmit played behind an O-line that routinely sent multiple members to the Pro Bowl, he played with a HOF qb and a HOF wr. On top of that he also played behind a great blocking fullback.

The telling point on Emmitt is that 99% of the time the first person who touched him brought him down. Fortunately for him, that first contact often didn't occur until he was 5 yards downfield. Contrast that with Barry who 99% of the time had to break a tackle just to get back to the line of scrimmage. And the first player who touched Barry NEVER brought him down...it was usually the 3rd.

I remember watching Emmit run through holes the size of caddilacs throughout his entire career. If barry and Emmitt switched places at the start of their careers Barry would've been the only player in history to record a 3000 yard season and would've blown Payton's record out of the water before he was 30 years old. On the other hand,f Emmitt got stuck in Detroit we wouldn't even know who he was right now and he never would've even gotten to a pro bowl, let alone the hall of fame.
Author:  Regular Reader [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Exclamation Moint wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
Emmitt Smith -- most overrated player in NFL history(with apologies to Joe Namath)?

Bart Starr. Steve Largent. Mike Singletary. Tiki Barber.



Read that, grimace and then weep FavreFan :lol:
Author:  FavreFan [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
nah, misguided opinions on one of the best big game qb's of his era dont bother me. And the emmitt hate is a joke. Apparently you guys missed that game against the giants. He's not considered even top 5 of all time by many so i dont know how overrated he is. He was a great player tho. Namath isn't touched on the overrated scale.
Author:  FavreFan [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
i didn't get to see forte alot last year. If looks like a bad player this year so far but i'll take 16 games production over 3 as an indicator. Give him more time
Author:  Scorehead [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Forte looks slow. Good RB's gain yards regardless of the quality of the Offensive Line. Kevin Smith, Steven Jackson, etc...
I'm wondering if this is just a sophomore slump or if Forte is another Bears RB who had a good rookie year, never to be heard from again...Ennis, Salaam, Benson, Forte?

I still want to kow why the fuck Garrett Wolfe was in the game and go 3 caries in a row including a 3rd & 1 try which he failed on. It would be nice if there was at least 1 reporter who has the balls to ask Lovie & Ron about this!
Author:  Hatchetman [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
Scorehead wrote:
It would be nice if there was at least 1 reporter who has the balls to ask Lovie & Ron about this!


somebody did. the clip was played this morning on the mully & hanley show. the reporter was that trollie looking guy for the tribune who's name escapes me (not haugh).
Author:  Tall Midget [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Matt Forte is not bad
FavreFan wrote:
i didn't get to see forte alot last year. If looks like a bad player this year so far but i'll take 16 games production over 3 as an indicator. Give him more time


He didn't look that good last year either. He does not explode into holes for plays up the middle. His strength is running outside and receiving. Both areas allow him to operate in space and give him a better chance to accelerate. He would be more effective running out of the spread formation.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/