No he will get the 7.7 mil which is 7 mil more than last year. It's the average 7.7mil or 120% of what he made previous year whichever is greater(so he will get the 7.7 mil in 2012). While it's maybe not exactly what he wants/deserves it's a huge step forward money wise for himTo me, the Bears are really letting Forte down.
Maybe they've struck a deal that will take place next year, and are trying to work under the cap.
If not, I think it's sad.
As well as he has played for the franchise, his reward is another year to play before he can get that 'big contract'.
The Bears don't have to tag him, and could dial up a great multi-year contract. but by tagging they only have to pay him 720k.
Forte asked the Bears to extend his contract last season.
A two-thousand yard year was on it's way last season through 12 games when he sprained his right MCL.
Since Cutler was already gone with the season, Forte was shelved for the remainder as well.
He was averaging 83 yards rushing at just under 5 yards a clip and 41 yards receiving at 9 and a half per gallop.
Come to think of it, this could be Forte's year. He's well rested and just getting better.
If Forte gets a career threatening/ending injury, He's SOL
jmho
good to hear positive input gizzil. thanks.i like your argument for RB's though alpha - arguably the toughest skill position job as far as hits and durability - i would think teams are gonna just sign draft picks for the 5 years or whatever, tag the next two years and later bud thanks for the service you're now obsolete
Cheap way to retain your kicker. No signing bonus, just a 1 yr deal and move on. I have no idea in Cleveland's case; but for Cincy, they have no other major FA's that they would consider tagging. So you either tag your kicker who is coming off a very good year or don't use it. Better using it than just tossing it away...no?so... two teams franchised kickers already? and they're both in ohio? and both are notoriously terrible? seriously i don't understand why a team franchises a kicker
RB may be turning into the least important position in football. They take a serious beating, making their shelf life very short. With RBBC approaches, you can pick up two lesser backs to do the job of one through specialization. Just no reason to put yourself out and sign these guys to big, long term deals. From the Bears perspective, they can tag him this year at 7.7; if they do it again next year, I think it's only a 20 or 25% increase. They risk nothing and don't have the large cash outlay at the start with the signing bonus.yeah there should be a separate union for running backs that helps them get a more fair share - as there isn't - why give a guy at the most risky position anything you dont have to? and as an aside i think he does make 7 mil as a franchised player