- Joined:
- Sep 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 41,612
- Liked Posts:
- 13,639
Yes, there is cause the Bears have had plenty of beeter receivers than him, their current #1 and #2 wrs being 2 of them.Gault had 4.1 speed. There's no way he doesn't make the team.
Yes, there is cause the Bears have had plenty of beeter receivers than him, their current #1 and #2 wrs being 2 of them.Gault had 4.1 speed. There's no way he doesn't make the team.
Or when it came to breaking shoestring tackles.LOL. Maybe I'm biased because I saw Anderson on the tail end of his career and Forte for all of his, but I'd take Forte all day. Except by the end zone.
Of course, you put Cutler on the list cause you're a Packer fan. Dumb as hell to put such a prolific loser on an all-time great team.I put Cutler on the QB list.
Don't put Forte for Anderson
Matt Suhey is the only FB for the Bears that I have seen as making an impact. Nagurski as mentioned is legendary. I think Brian should be taken off.
George Blanda as a kicker for the Bears? He made 43.8% of his FG's as a Bear. Granted kickers are a lot more accurate these days but fuck. Made the list on name alone like Piccolo.
Prime Neal Anderson is better than Forte
I disagree. He was a more explosive runner in terms of speed, that's about it. Anderson rushed for less ypc than Forte and he did it behind a much better line. Never seen a Bears player so underrated by his own fans as Forte, and it's all because he makes everything look so easy. Because of his body type and fluid running style, he doesn't move as frantically and jerkily as some shorter and lesser backs, and people are confused into thinking what he's doing isn't that good. But he is a top player and he belongs on this list.
No, he doesnt get the respect that you think he deserves because he gets tackled by a cricket in the grass and cant/wont power his way out of a tackle
Other than that hes great
If he were as bad or soft a runner as you think, he wouldn't be considered one of the best in the league by the paid analysts who understand the game a lot better than you do.
So if a coach says a certain player is good I will automatically accept it. Does this work with every player or just the ones you are a fanboy of mick?
You can do whatever you like, Pride.
Finally got permission lol. Seriously though forte osnt better than anderson and goes down quick but he id still damn good. Dont take it as a shot
He is respected by those who count, not unknowledgeable fans on message boards. If he were as bad or soft a runner as you think, he wouldn't be considered one of the best in the league by the coaches, players, and paid analysts who understand the game a lot better than you do.
And let's face it, if I hated Forte, you would argue for his virtues all day until the cows came home.
Harris was absolutely elite before injuries cut his career short. If his play from 2004-2006 could have lasted for a decade, he would be rivaling Warren Sapp as an all-time great 3-tech. He was unbelievably good. It's insane to have the Fridge in there over him.
Anderson was faster and more explosive. Forte better vision, moves, and overall player. Underrated toughness too.
[video=youtube;ke_nI8KZckk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke_nI8KZckk[/video]
QB: Sid Luckman
RB: Walter Payton
FB: Bronko Nagurski
WR: Brandon Marshall
WR: Johnny Morris
TE: Mike Ditka
T: Jim Covert
G: Stan Jones
C: Clyde Turner
G: Danny Fortmann
T: George Conner
DE: Doug Atkins
DT: Wally Chambers
DT: Dan Hampton
DE: Richard Dent
OLB: Joe Fortunato
MLB: Dick Butkus
OLB: Lance Briggs
CB: Charles Tillman
CB: JC Caroline
S: Gary Fencik
S: Roosevelt Taylor
K: Robbie Gould
P: Brad Maynard
KR: Devin Hester
I disagree. He was a more explosive runner in terms of speed, that's about it. .
Cmon man, you are letting your love of Forte cloud your vision. Forte is respected as one of the better ALL AROUND backs in the NFL - you have to add that qualifier in there (ALL AROUND).
As a pure runner, he's middle of the pack. He doesn't possess explosive speed ala Charles or Johnson (we've seen quite a few breakaways in which he's been caught), he doesn't possess insanely quick feet ala Shady and he doesn't possess brute force to run over guys and or break tackles to extend plays ala Lynch, Lacy or Murray.
His biggest value as a runner is his vision and most importantly, his patience. Not to mention his ball security (Carolina game was a fluke).
If Matt Forte wasn't the receiver he was, he wouldn't get the accolades he does. It's his versatility that makes him so good, not his pure running ability. If they passed a rule tomorrow that RBs can only run and not receive, Matt Forte's value would diminish greatly.
I love him as a FOOTBALL player. I love him as a RUNNING BACK. I'm lukewarm on him as a runner.
Right or wrong, his biggest drawback is his inability to break tackles. If Marshawn Lynch is the best starting RB in the NFL at breaking tackles, Matt Forte might be the worst. I watch a lot of football (5 games or so each week) and in watching, I simply can't think of other guys that go down on such minimal contact as Forte.
It is what it is. It's unfortunate. If he were to fix that shortcoming of his game, he'd probably average another 12-18 yards per game and pick up another 2-3 first downs per game. Unfortunately, Forte goes down on first contact more than a $2 hooker.
:smh:id take that entire list cept id trade out cutler for luckman
id take that entire list cept id trade out cutler for luckman