Bears all time team

Omeletpants · Jan 28, 2015

You girls do go on

ijustposthere · Jan 28, 2015

Spartan said:
I don't think there's much difference between the two really. I remember expecting more from Anderson but he seemed to fade much too quickly. He seemed to be the more explosive runner and both about the same receiving out of the backfield, Forte's last 2 years of receiving being bloated due to Trestman's love of screens and dump offs. I don't recall the Bears having anything in the way of receivers during Anderson's prime which probably made it a bit rougher on him. Of course Forte's had to deal with a shit QB. Pick'em

I'd say Anderson's QB pool was worse.

hyatt151 · Jan 28, 2015

The most under rated RB in Bears history is Galimore, JMO.

The Hawk · Jan 28, 2015

hyatt151 said:
The most under rated RB in Bears history is Galimore, JMO.

Very good. So was Thomas Jones who remains one of my favorite Bear's players.

legendxofxlink · Jan 28, 2015

The Hawk said:
Very good. So was Thomas Jones who remains one of my favorite Bear's players.

Jones was a great player. Fuck Ron Turdner for not running Jones more in the SB. I'm still bent over that.. Jones breaking off a 52 yarder in the 1st, only down by 3 at halftime on a rainy night,. And finishes with 15 carries the whole game?

Packer Fan · Jan 28, 2015

bearmick said:
According to you, FT, Packer Fan, and cd35 maybe. What a great group. One guy who hates Forte because of me, the board's biggest troll, a Packer fan who thinks Ryan Grant is better, and a self-professed Anderson fanboy LOL.

I posted for you the same numbers I have always posted for you Bearmick. Their rushing stats for the first their first three years. Grant had more rushing yards, a better rushing ypc, and more rushing touchdowns. Forte has never been a special rushing back. Was Grant the better back running the ball? Don't know but the argument has always been that they are comparable in that area. Obviously Forte has always had more catches. You chalk that up to how versatile he is where I chalk this up to the number of opportunities he gets.

Unannounced Fart · Jan 28, 2015

All this carrying on about Anderson/Forte... I'd take Anderson in his prime over Forte.. but I'd take Forte's career over Anderson's. Regardless, they're both great backs and the difference between them is negligible, IMO. Certainly close enough for both sides to make strong arguments for either one.

Packer Fan · Jan 28, 2015

Unannounced Fart said:
All this carrying on about Anderson/Forte... I'd take Anderson in his prime over Forte.. but I'd take Forte's career over Anderson's. Regardless, they're both great backs and the difference between them is negligible, IMO. Certainly close enough for both sides to make strong arguments for either one.

I don't know. I would never compare Neal Anderson to Ryan Grant in any facet of the game.

Unannounced Fart · Jan 28, 2015

Packer Fan said:
I don't know. I would never compare Neal Anderson to Ryan Grant in any facet of the game.

Ryan Grant was a good mudder, I'll give him that.

FirstTimer · Jan 30, 2015

bearmick said:
According to you, FT, Packer Fan, and cd35 maybe. What a great group. One guy who hates Forte because of me, the board's biggest troll, a Packer fan who thinks Ryan Grant is better, and a self-professed Anderson fanboy LOL.

The hell are you talking about? I don't "hate" Forte? I'm not a "troll" and I don't think Ryan Grant is better. Your panties are still twisted because you got clowned in putting Matt Forte in as he currently stands in the conversation with first and second ballot HOF'ers. Forte is a pretty good NFL RB. He's a top 5 back in the NFL IMO. What's your issue?

Spartan said:
I don't think there's much difference between the two really. I remember expecting more from Anderson but he seemed to fade much too quickly. He seemed to be the more explosive runner and both about the same receiving out of the backfield, Forte's last 2 years of receiving being bloated due to Trestman's love of screens and dump offs. I don't recall the Bears having anything in the way of receivers during Anderson's prime which probably made it a bit rougher on him. Of course Forte's had to deal with a shit QB. Pick'em

How dare you disparage Wendell Davis and Rob Morris.

I don't think there is a large difference between Anderson and Forte really either and have repeatedly said as much. If I'm taking a guy based on a one year "peak" production/ability it's likely Anderson but Forte is pretty damn talented and has been more durable. Flip a coin. You can't go wrong really.

GBlaze08 · Jan 30, 2015

FirstTimer said:
I'm not a "troll"

:lmao:

FirstTimer · Jan 30, 2015

hyatt151 said:
The most under rated RB in Bears history is Galimore, JMO.

IMO it's Casares. Rarely ever mentioned but when he retired he was something like the 5th or 6th leading rusher in NFL history. Everyone ahead of him at that time ended up in the HOF IIRC.

FirstTimer · Jan 30, 2015

legendxofxlink said:
Jones was a great player. Fuck Ron Turdner for not running Jones more in the SB. I'm still bent over that.. Jones breaking off a 52 yarder in the 1st, only down by 3 at halftime on a rainy night,. And finishes with 15 carries the whole game?

At the time of the Grossman pick six the rushing/passing splits were even. Shitty narrative.

FirstTimer · Jan 30, 2015

Just saw the first page as well in regards to William Perry. Bears fans tend to forget Perry wasn't even the best DT in his own family. Let alone one of two best in Bears history.

bearmick · Jan 30, 2015

FirstTimer said:
The hell are you talking about? I don't "hate" Forte? I'm not a "troll" and I don't think Ryan Grant is better.

Chill out dude, I was referring to Packer Fan and his comments about Grant.

FirstTimer · Jan 30, 2015

bearmick said:
Chill out dude, I was referring to Packer Fan and his comments about Grant.

Then umm why is my username lumped in with those and how is my name relevant at all to the qualifiers you gave?

Hbkrusso · Jan 30, 2015

Hbkrusso · Jan 30, 2015

legendxofxlink · Jan 30, 2015

FirstTimer said:
At the time of the Grossman pick six the rushing/passing splits were even. Shitty narrative.

lol, you're a dumbass. 17 runs against that team was not a successful gameplan. Execution was not the problem, so it falls under the playcaller.

Asswipe Johnson · Jan 30, 2015

hbkrusso said:
I like forte but id put him just under Anderson. but I could see the argument for moving him above anderson

I realize the convo has probably moved on from this, but I am chiming in anyway. First, I love Matt Forte. He is a solid pro for sure. Neal Anderson was better. I actually don't think it is even close. Anderson was a great blocker ( at least as good as matt, probably slightly better), a very good receiver ( at least as good as matt, and not just a bunch of dump-offs ), a very good runner ( stronger and faster then matt ). The only category Forte is better for sure is longevity, and that's important. But Anderson was the better football player, imo.

Red Grange was no slouch either, or so I have read.

Bears all time team

Save America

My favorite teams

Message Board Hero

My favorite teams

CCS Donator

Well-known member

My favorite teams

Whistle Dixie

My favorite teams

CCS Donator

Well-known member

My favorite teams

CCS Donator

Well-known member

My favorite teams

v. 2.0: Fully Modded

Member in Ommys mouth

v. 2.0: Fully Modded

v. 2.0: Fully Modded

v. 2.0: Fully Modded

Captain Objectivity

v. 2.0: Fully Modded

Objective Fanboy

Objective Fanboy

Whistle Dixie

My favorite teams

Active member