Just came across the wire the Bears are not likely to re-sign him.
Would be awfully nice as a change of pace, plus a weapon in the passing game. Would do wonders on 3rd down (needed). Plenty left in the tank from what I saw.
Depends on the $$$, but needs to be looked at pretty seriously, imo.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I would love to see him in GB but I know better than to get my hopes up. But just to daydream a bit......he'd provide some much needed leadership for Lacy. He'd give them an actual receiving threat at RB, something that Starks and Lacy just never gave them this year. He'd also provide even more flexibility - can you imagine lining up Forte and Cobb in the backfield? Either could flex out in the slot or take the hand off. Not many teams can do that.
But it won't happen. Just not a TT-like move.......
He's a true free agent with an expired contract, so no way TT even looks at him.
Given the questions that are surrounding Lacy that would be a move that makes sense. Agree that it would be out of character for TT and thus unlikely to happen.
Depends on Forte's price tag and how the RB/FB group behind Starks is developing. If Lacy looks like he's actually getting it together, Crockett looks like a player, and Ripkowski looks like he can take over for Kuhn then they will opt for the young player they already have. If all three players are questionable or they aren't sold, I think it's a very real possibility. Certainly that's what we saw this past year with the James Jones signing...they didn't gamble on the young guys so they brought in veteran insurance for cheap. If Forte's price is reasonable then I don't think it's unrealistic.
The question is what is his price tag? Statistically, he's a Top 5 RB. I would think it's going to be somewhere in the 3/4 year, 7-10 range? Would he take a lower salary in order to compete for a SB, or is he going to get all the cheese he can?
He'd compliment Feast Mode well should Starks be let go.
Will he take #32
Long time B***s beat writer.
@BradBiggs: There are a lot of places that make sense for former #Bears RB Matt Forte. The #Packers are one team that would be a perfect fit.
Lacy, Forte,Crockett.......one can dream.
probably too much $ in the RB spot, though Lacy is still just only over a million this year. They wouldnt be able to keep this duo together long term
Id rather see an impact TE or LB
For an incentive-laden contract yes. He'd bring a new dimension in terms of the passing game and he's good at pass protection as well. He'd be a nice 3rd down back at this point in his career.
The downside is obviously that he'll be 31 next year and most RBs start getting dinged up well before that. My guess is someone will overpay him and gamble that his health will holdup. If he wants to win, he'll go to the Packers, Patriots, or Colts for less money.
Music City posted:Just came across the wire the Bears are not likely to re-sign him.
Would be awfully nice as a change of pace, plus a weapon in the passing game. Would do wonders on 3rd down (needed). Plenty left in the tank from what I saw.
Depends on the $$$, but needs to be looked at pretty seriously, imo.
Change of pace??? He'd be our best back. The questions remain the same. How much, and does he want to play in GB?
He would be a great addition, but with Lacy still playing under his rookie deal and expected to return in better condition, I think the chances of signing Forte are slim to none. I hope I'm wrong.
Uhm...in my opinion cheap Ted isn't going to spend any bucks on a 31 year old RB playing a position that has become a simple commodity in salary cap wars.
Besides Ted doesn't go to Oneida but gets his kicks out of speculating on cheap RB talent and he's proven to be fairly good at it. He's liable to hit a gold mine with one of these guys sooner or later.
For Ted RB is just a cheap numbers game so he can play his chips on the second round WR lotto nearly every year.
Has he been good at it though? I would call Lacy cheap, a 2nd round pick who will end up getting a solid deal in 2017. He got a good value with Starks for sure and for Ryan Grant, but RB was a problem child for this team post-Grant and pre-Lacy. I'm not anticipating they bring in Forte, but Ted likes to get good veterans at a reasonable price...if Forte's price is cheap then he won't pass.
Forte's price is that he'd count against compensatory picks though.
Frank Gore got $12/3yrs, $6.5 guaranteed last year at 31. Considering it's a year later and cap is going up, figure a 10% increase is the starting point for a comparable player.
I'd argue 2016 Forte offers a lot more than 2015 Gore, but consider $13/3 your absolute floor.
The Packers are in a position right now to add this dimension to their game and benefit from it.
Would The additional investment in Forte (just turned 30 in DEC) over Starks (turns 30 in 2 weeks) be justified considering skill set and production?
Is some additional bonus/cap $$$ worth it for a guy clearly past his bell cow days but proven as a 2-way back as one of the league's best?
Is the addition of a veteran whose professionalism has been lauded league-wide something that would make the entire unit better in all aspects?
The answers to me are all yes. This team needs this kind of player. Veteran leadership to help show #27 how. sell him a Championship. Have Peppers help recruit him. Do whatever you have to do sans screwing the cap. I'm guessing a reasonable deal is in the 3-4 year, $20-25M with $8-10M guaranteed. Demarco Murray got 5 yrs $40M with $18M guaranteed.
No way TT signs Forte. He's on the wrong side of 30 and has taken a lot of pounding over the last 8 years.
Herschel posted:Forte's price is that he'd count against compensatory picks though.
Considering some of the washouts at mid round pics that we've been seeing in recent years, no loss.
Goalline posted:Music City posted:Just came across the wire the Bears are not likely to re-sign him.
Would be awfully nice as a change of pace, plus a weapon in the passing game.
Change of pace??? He'd be our best back. The questions remain the same. How much, and does he want to play in GB?
Fair enough- and a nice little insurance policy if #27 can't get his heavy ass in shape... but something tells me that if Lacy was practicing with Forte every day, he would be in the best shape of his career...
Grave Digger posted:but RB was a problem child for this team post-Grant and pre-Lacy.
Super Bowl XLV is our red haired bastard step child I suppose.
Did some of you just start following the Packers yesterday?
Point Brewmaster posted:No way TT signs Forte. He's on the wrong side of 30 and has taken a lot of pounding over the last 8 years.
So, he is the Kim Kardashian of football players?
Somewhat surprisingly, we have more film of Forte's getting pounded.
Slightly more.
Bet he winds up in Seattle.
It would be a terrible move IMO. Would rather add a young running back to the mix. Forte is at the age where it's pretty likely his production is going to decline. A year from now the Packers could wind up with an old, overpaid running back and either a fat unproductive running back or a running back that was motivated but priced out of Green Bay because the Packers sunk a bunch of money in a different running back...in that scenario the Packers are left with little at running back heading into 2017. They are better off filling the Starks hole with a rookie running back. This offseason, running back is a position where the draft and develop strategy makes the most sense.
I have no problem with Ted surrendering the comp pick they will likely get for Heyward but he shouldn't do it for a running back. It would make sense to sign an inside linebacker. Get a veteran to pair with younger players like Barrington and Ryan and it would give the Packers the flexibility to bounce Matthews outside. Outside linebacker...with Peppers age plus the potential departures of Neal and Perry plus who knows what Datone Jones future is? That's a position where it might make sense to sign a veteran player and add a high draft pick...especially considering it's importance when playing a 3-4. Tight end. Richard Rodgers is a young player and Ted sunk a third rounder into him so it's likely he's here and playing for awhile. Top of the draft doesn't have much tight end depth. Investing in a veteran tight end makes a bunch of sense. But running back...I don't think it would be a good move.
Maybe nobody will want to sign him at $10 million per & just like Woodson/Peppers he will sign with Green Bay at a fair but equitable contract.
PackerJoe posted:This offseason, running back is a position where the draft and develop strategy makes the most sense.
I have no problem with Ted surrendering the comp pick they will likely get for Heyward but he shouldn't do it for a running back.
On the surface everything you're saying makes sense, and normally I'd agree with you. But not this time. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying the Packers didn't need Peppers because they had young players develops and the draft is the best place to add developing talent. The Packers eschewed this logic when they signed Peppers.
Matt Forte represents exactly what this team needs in offense- veteran leadership and 3rd down proficiency with a player hungry for hardware. Each is equally important.
Most of the discussion comes down to the price tag. If he's looking for the highest bidder then no. He has to sign a deal that isn't setting the Packers up for disaster. But the best defensive addition to this team would be a guy that will help Aaron Rodgers stay on the field longer. Your defense sure gets a lot better when they're never on the field. Don't forget- this is an offense that ranked 23rd in yards and 17th in 1st downs.
Ammo, they were talking about that today on a local Pacific Northwest sports show. Probably will sign him and get the better of it as they have with lots of their signings and picks.
Kirwin & Miller were talking about it on NFL radio & concurred that the Packers & Patriots were the best 2 fits for Forte. Said that they did not see him signing with a team that was not a proven winner. In addition they pointed out that the cold weather would not be as big deterrent since he played in Chicago.
If we had Forte, we could surely go for 2 after a touchdown and get it.
YATittle posted:If we had Forte, we could surely go for 2 after a touchdown and get it.
If we had Forte there would be no need to go for 2
If we had Forte there would be no need for a defense.
But what if the Packers had Forte?
World peace?
Most importantly, is Forte the missing link to get 15 pages on the Packers 2pt thread?
It's become my life's work an even I realize using a Yoko reference would not be in the spirit of the game.
