Bears need real help at RB

[Grizzled]

Cohen, Niall, and Montgomery are under contract for 2020. They can get thru the season with these 3 if there’s no injury to any of them. Can these guys be effective? Yes if the obvious changes are made: beefing up the OL, bringing in and using tight ends. Another RB is a luxury until the other issues are fixed.

[Drone7]

They can probably pick up a serviceable low cost FA once the money dries up or a good prospect that falls late in the draft, maybe even a UDFA .

[AZ_Bearfan]

Maybe they could get Whyte back. Move Cohen to WR and roll with Monty, Whyte and Nall.

[The Cooler King]

Maybe they could get Whyte back. Move Cohen to WR and roll with Monty, Whyte and Nall.

If they want Whyte back I imagine they'd be waiting for 53 man cuts at the earliest.

They don't need to hit RB aggressive early in FA, but I think a greater than minimum commitment would be warranted, and I'd be open to drafting one anywhere on the board if the value is right.

[Rusty Trombagent]

yeah, the nall thing is mind boggling. they're never going to make a real commitment to him, just continue to give him the harvey unga treatment until his practice squad eligibility is used up. so why keep him over whyte?

[IE]

I'm just trying to follow your logic here...you said...

First, I absolutely love the Montgomery pick. I think he's a potential workhorse back for years. Love love love the kid.

Second, I really like Cohen - even though he was disappointing this year in many ways. What I think he really is, is a 3rd down back - actually more a WR than a RB (he even said so) I believe they definitely should be leveraging his explosive, open field skills (e.g. wheel routes) and NOT running curls, those predictable WR screens and other contested routes. I guess what I'm saying is, I've concluded he's not a #2 RB. And he certainly isn't interchangeable or a reliable starting RB if/when Monty gets dinged for a few games every year.

Third, Patterson can be a really effective running back.

Now I'm not Stephen Hawking or anything, but I think if you like our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RB's currently on roster and aren't suggesting we dump any of them, then you're talking about a 4th RB here, no? The only one putting words in your mouth is...umm....you. But look, if you think adding a 4th RB to our team who will be lucky to see the ball even once a game is more important than adding a starting RG or upgrading at OT, then ok....you can have that discussion all you want. My opinion is that's moronic. But you're welcome to think otherwise.

Any astute observer of this team, locally or nationally, has noted that this team has glaring problems at OL, TE, and sadly QB. Those are the areas I think we should focus on. We're set at RB IMO. JMO, please don't yell at me.

(spice warning... lol) You're right - you're certainly not Hawking. I clearly explained multiple times that while I like the Cohen and CPatt, they are not legit quality depth at RB. Based on that, the Bears literally have one 3-down back on the roster, plus a scatback who is really a WR and a ST all pro who is a gadget guy and emergency RB only (and that is if you have Tom Brady). And then the Bears go 5 young TEs deep not even including Shaheen. Yet that is the problem, huh?

Maybe some observers aren't as astute as they're given credit for being.

Nobody said there weren't glaring problems at OL. It is only the very narrow minded who believe the ONLY solution to that is replacing everybody. The Bears seem to disagree with you on that, because they blamed the OLine coach and coordinator.

[crueltyabc]

The RB position has been terribly mismanaged IMO. There has been a ton of investment and little payoff - that's on coaching. Meanwhile IE is right that Pace should be able to find a third running back either late in the draft or in FA and has failed.

Also, and yes I'll keep beating this drum, too, the RG problem was a big problem, as was our TE blocking / WR blocking (this plus drops = Furrey should be fired IMO). We were garbage running outside, and literally worst in the NFL running offtackle to the right

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... -line/2019

It should be cheap and easy to find an adequate backup for Monty, and I pray the new coaches get more ROI from Monty Cohen and Patterson who I believe are good players.

[Richie]

We have 3 RB's that you like. Including a "workhorse" starter, a good 3rd down back and a potential 3rd RB who you believe can be effective in a pinch in Patterson.

We even have a practice squad guy in Nall that you think could play if given an opportunity.

Yet, we need help? We need a 4th or even a 5th RB? I'm pretty confused there.

RB should be low an any team's list of needs. Especially ours. We need to build our line.

[wab]

Nall is more of an H-Back and the Bears have no real backup to Montgomery. I could see Patterson filling in well enough if needed... but I don't think there's anything wrong with considering a viable backup to #32.

[The Cooler King]

Nall is more of an H-Back and the Bears have no real backup to Montgomery. I could see Patterson filling in well enough if needed... but I don't think there's anything wrong with considering a viable backup to #32.

Yup. The Mike Davis role was a perfect complement. Nagy just didn't use him, so it made sense to eventually cut him once they ended up basically being out of the playoffs with a comp pick on the line. But they should look to refill that role.

[UOK]

Mike Davis was unremarkable. Don't blame Nagy over Davis, of all players. Davis was a good fit on paper, but never distinguished himself to me.

[The Cooler King]

Mike Davis was unremarkable. Don't blame Nagy over Davis, of all players. Davis was a good fit on paper, but never distinguished himself to me.

He went from 40 to 15 snaps between week 1 and 2 and then 16 Total snaps from weeks 3 to 9.

I think I know why he didn't distinguish himself lol.

[UOK]

Mike Davis was unremarkable. Don't blame Nagy over Davis, of all players. Davis was a good fit on paper, but never distinguished himself to me.

He went from 40 to 15 snaps between week 1 and 2 and then 16 Total snaps from weeks 3 to 9.

I think I know why he didn't distinguish himself lol.

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

[Drone7]

Pace and Nagy are to blame for the woeful running game.

Pace for the OL and TEs. (as a group)

Nagy for the lack of commitment to the ground game and poor run scheme.

And yeah, they could use a replacement 3 down RB in case Monty goes down. The fact they signed Davis was an acknowledgement of that.

[The Cooler King]

He went from 40 to 15 snaps between week 1 and 2 and then 16 Total snaps from weeks 3 to 9.

I think I know why he didn't distinguish himself lol.

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

I'm not arguing for not cutting him when they did. But his role is one the team should have filled. I think you can arguably fill it on a shorter deal than the 3 thye gave to Davis, but shouldn't be a minimum type commitment.

[UOK]

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

I'm not arguing for not cutting him when they did. But his role is one the team should have filled. I think you can arguably fill it on a shorter deal than the 3 thye gave to Davis, but shouldn't be a minimum type commitment.

If I'm remembering right, Davis was signed as a contingency that they wouldn't draft a guy like Montgomery in the draft. Once Monty was drafted, Davis' spot on the roster was kind of useless.

[The Cooler King]

That's total conjecture. And frankly Montgomery nor Cohen have not shown they're good enough that a 3rd RB isn't a decent need (filled by something more than Patterson).

[wab]

He went from 40 to 15 snaps between week 1 and 2 and then 16 Total snaps from weeks 3 to 9.

I think I know why he didn't distinguish himself lol.

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

The Mike Davis thing is pretty simple really. For starters, he was signed as a hedge against not finding a back in the draft. Once they did, and realized that Montgomery could carry the load, Davis' role was reduced to almost noting in order to protect him from injury so he could be cut and the Bears could get the comp pick.

Had they used him and he had gotten hurt, then no comp pick.

[UOK]

That's total conjecture.

As is 99% of all internet debate. It's not like Ryan Pace puts out a statement of, "To head off internet posters, I signed Davis because we needed to sign a RB in case I couldn't find someone to draft" for all his signings.

And frankly Montgomery nor Cohen have not shown they're good enough that a 3rd RB isn't a decent need (filled by something more than Patterson).

No argument there. I'm not disagreeing that Montgomery and/or Cohen are unexceptional themselves, but Mike Davis wasn't necessarily some squandered, burgeoning talent the organization failed.

[dplank]

I'm just trying to follow your logic here...you said...



Now I'm not Stephen Hawking or anything, but I think if you like our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RB's currently on roster and aren't suggesting we dump any of them, then you're talking about a 4th RB here, no? The only one putting words in your mouth is...umm....you. But look, if you think adding a 4th RB to our team who will be lucky to see the ball even once a game is more important than adding a starting RG or upgrading at OT, then ok....you can have that discussion all you want. My opinion is that's moronic. But you're welcome to think otherwise.

Any astute observer of this team, locally or nationally, has noted that this team has glaring problems at OL, TE, and sadly QB. Those are the areas I think we should focus on. We're set at RB IMO. JMO, please don't yell at me.

(spice warning... lol) You're right - you're certainly not Hawking. I clearly explained multiple times that while I like the Cohen and CPatt, they are not legit quality depth at RB. Based on that, the Bears literally have one 3-down back on the roster, plus a scatback who is really a WR and a ST all pro who is a gadget guy and emergency RB only (and that is if you have Tom Brady). And then the Bears go 5 young TEs deep not even including Shaheen. Yet that is the problem, huh?

Maybe some observers aren't as astute as they're given credit for being.

Nobody said there weren't glaring problems at OL. It is only the very narrow minded who believe the ONLY solution to that is replacing everybody. The Bears seem to disagree with you on that, because they blamed the OLine coach and coordinator.

Now...when did I say we needed to "replace everybody" on the OL exactly? Aren't you the same guy that just freaked out because I said finding a new 4th string RB isn't a top priority saying I put words in your mouth? Show me where I suggested that we replace everybody on our OL and I'll never question anything you ever say again....if you can't, I believe you just put words in my mouth. Go get your shinebox son, you're out of your league. I happen to love both Whitehair and Daniels, I can save you some time and guarantee you I never said that.

It's hilarious that you praise our stable of garbage TE's (half of which are UDFA's and castoffs) but aren't happy with Monty (3rd rd pick who looked very good as a rookie) + Cohen (already made a pro bowl) as our main 1-2 punch. SMH.

[UOK]

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

The Mike Davis thing is pretty simple really. For starters, he was signed as a hedge against not finding a back in the draft. Once they did, and realized that Montgomery could carry the load, Davis' role was reduced to almost noting in order to protect him from injury so he could be cut and the Bears could get the comp pick.

Had they used him and he had gotten hurt, then no comp pick.

CONJECTURE!

Aren't you the same guy that just freaked out because I said finding a new 4th string RB isn't a top priority saying I put words in your mouth? Show me where I suggested that we replace everybody on our OL and I'll never question anything you ever say again....if you can't, I believe you just put words in my mouth. Go get your shinebox son, you're out of your league.

Since we're going the Goodfellas route, let's try to keep the conversation more along the lines of the "you really ARE a funny guy" scene, and less of the Murdering Billy Bats scene.

[dplank]

Back to the discussion with the adults....@UOK, I don't think Mike Davis forgot how to play after leaving Seattle (where he was a good player). Nor do I think he was some superstar talent squandered by Nagy. Nagy liked Monty better after a few weeks and Monty was a workhorse, so Davis sat. No big deal, we really didn't need him, because as everyone here seems to agree we just don't really need another RB on this team all that badly. Monty is a workhorse and Cohen is a great change of pace guy, that's 95% of our workload from our backfield right there. Someone needs to be able to backup Monty though, I happen to like Nall and think he'd do well if given a shot. But I wouldn't be upset if we nabbed someone else or drafted a guy later on. It's just not a priority issue, I think everyone but one agree with that. OL is the priority. All ships rise with a better OL.

[The Cooler King]

Monty, at this point is not a very good workhorse. The RB stable would be better if it was deeper with breadth of diversity in the backs.

[southdakbearfan]

Monty, at this point is not a very good workhorse. The RB stable would be better if it was deeper with breadth of diversity in the backs.

I would disagree on two points.

I think monty is a workhorse and the line was complete garbage most of the year in front of him.

And, if Nagy is going to continue to run his offense the same way there really isn't a point in adding anyone besides nall.

[The Marshall Plan]

In the case of Mike Davis, you either blame him for being nothing special or you blame Nagy for not using him as he should have. Either way, I'd always have chosen to field Montgomery and Cohen over him, and cutting him was one of the biggest no-brainer moves Pace could've done.

The Mike Davis thing is pretty simple really. For starters, he was signed as a hedge against not finding a back in the draft. Once they did, and realized that Montgomery could carry the load, Davis' role was reduced to almost noting in order to protect him from injury so he could be cut and the Bears could get the comp pick.

Had they used him and he had gotten hurt, then no comp pick.

If that's true, then Pace and Nagy are dumber than I thought.

We had Jordan Howard. Can we at least agree that Howard > Davis?

Please don't retort with that Davis is some sort of threat in the passing game.

[IE]

Back to the discussion with the adults....@UOK

I used to think you had a decent take. But I changed my mind. You're just a crusty know-it all. Blah. Oline. Blah. Oline. Look how smart I am, because I know the Oline is important. Oline. Throw out a young LT who had zero penalties in 2018 because he regressed the next year. Man I'm smart, because I say Oline.

Moving on...

[dplank]

Wise move.

[UOK]

Back to the discussion with the adults.

This internet tough guy shit can really stop.

[wab]

The Mike Davis thing is pretty simple really. For starters, he was signed as a hedge against not finding a back in the draft. Once they did, and realized that Montgomery could carry the load, Davis' role was reduced to almost noting in order to protect him from injury so he could be cut and the Bears could get the comp pick.

Had they used him and he had gotten hurt, then no comp pick.

If that's true, then Pace and Nagy are dumber than I thought.

We had Jordan Howard. Can we at least agree that Howard > Davis?

Please don't retort with that Davis is some sort of threat in the passing game.

No one cares about Howard anymore. This was a discussion about what happened with Davis.

[UOK]

We had Jordan Howard. Can we at least agree that Howard > Davis?

Not going to state an opinion, just post some useful numbers regarding Howard from a recent Athletic article:

https://theathletic.com/1565159/2020/01 ... verything/