ESPN NFL

» AFC Scenarios: East | West | North | South » NFC: East | West | North | South

Yes, the start of training camps is two months away, but it’s never too early to consider the coming season. A look at the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the Chicago Bears in 2012.

Dream scenario (13-3): Tailback Matt Forte reports to training camp happy and healthy, either with a new contract or an acceptance of the franchise tag. His good will soothes the locker room and allows players to focus on football. Quarterback Jay Cutler leads the second coming of the 2008 Denver Broncos offense, connecting with receiver Brandon Marshall for 100-plus receptions, and the Bears finally find a Devin Hester "Package" that works. The aging defense remains sharp, rookie Shea McClellin provides an important balance to the pass rush and the Bears prove to be an NFC powerhouse.

Nightmare scenario: (7-9): Forte holds out from training camp, starting the summer off on a bad vibe. An offense that looks good on paper struggles to get organized under first-year coordinator Mike Tice. The Hester Package limits his effectiveness as a returner. McClellin isn't ready to be a three-down player. The defense gets old more quickly than expected, exposing the Bears' lack of young impact players.

Mort and Suzy discuss the Bears' offseason issues, Max and Marcellus rank the teams in the NFC East, and Herm and Bill Polian show off their dance moves.

Never has the NFC North's transition been more visible than on the final day of the 2011 regular season. On a snowy day at Lambeau Field, the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions combined for 103 passing attempts and 1,000 passing yards.

By the time the Packers secured a 45-41 victory, Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford had exceeded 5,000 yards passing for the season and Packers backup Matt Flynn had convinced the league he was a starting-caliber quarterback. Where once we could have expected the teams to grind out a classic Black and Blue game, they instead combined for a total of 37 carries. No running back made it to the modest total of 50 yards.

We've spent some time this offseason noting what we could politely call a tilt toward the passing game in both Detroit and Green Bay. We've discussed the Chicago Bears' seeming ambivalence about signing tailback Matt Forte to a long-term extension, and we've pointed out the Minnesota Vikings' uncertainty as tailback Adrian Peterson rehabilitates his shredded knee.

If you looked at this division through a traditional lens, you could consider running back a significant draft need for at least half of the division, if not all of it. But the NFC North's frenzied quarterback acquisitions over the past few years have brought us to a precipice. Are we ready to jump off, once and for all, into the world of Air and Space? Or will our teams step away from that ledge and rebalance their personnel, if not their scheme, to double back on the running game?

As the NFL continues its push toward passing supremacy, it's hard to imagine any NFC North team making anything other than subtle changes. Why take the ball out of the hands Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler or Stafford? And why not give Christian Ponder every chance to take the next step in his development?

This offseason, we've heard the Vikings speak often about seeking more playmakers for Ponder. We've watched the Bears sign Michael Bush as insurance against Forte's possible absence, but otherwise the Bears have worked to fortify their passing game with the acquisition of receiver Brandon Marshall and private meetings with many of the draft's top receivers, from Michael Floyd to Stephen Hill to Alshon Jeffery.

The Lions are the case study here, followed closely by the Packers. Injuries to Jahvid Best, Mikel Leshoure, Kevin Smith and the brain tumor of Jerome Harrison left them little choice but to rely on Stafford's arm last season. They finished 2011 with the second-fewest rushing attempts in the NFL, managed 71 rushing first downs (No. 29 in the league), according to ESPN Stats & Information.

Stafford told reporters this week that "everybody on our team would like to be a little more balanced than we were last year." It's reasonable to think they will be if Best and/or Leshoure are available full-time. But a serious commitment to improve would almost certainly require a draft investment. Best (concussion) has not been cleared for football work, Leshoure (Achilles) is coming back from a serious injury for a running back, and Smith has had difficulty staying healthy throughout his career.

How much do the Lions value that balance? We should find out over draft weekend. Again, most of us would look at their roster and toss question marks all over their backfield. But in 2012, how important is it to have an established and traditional No. 1 running back?

"We want to score as many points as we can," coach Jim Schwartz said at the NFL scouting combine. "Whether you do it running or passing, it doesn't matter. I think you want to try to get the ball in playmakers' hands."

In the end, the Lions might be best-served by pursuing a more modest goal: Being in position to capitalize against imbalanced defenses. Dictating a game on the ground might well be an NFC North artifact.

"If teams take the approach of playing the pass first," Schwartz said, "we should be in the position of having running backs who can make them pay for that."

Yes, there is a more than reasonable argument to be made that you don't need an elite running back when you have elite quarterbacks and receivers. A competent running back who doesn't miss the obvious yards might well suffice.

I don't know if the Lions, or the Packers for that matter, will invest a high draft pick in a running back. None of us do. But is it necessary? Probably not, at least not in our new Air and Space division. Soon we'll know how far off the cliff we've fallen.

One man's opinion on the top five Monday night games for 2012:

1. Atlanta Falcons at Detroit Lions, Week 16. Call this one the Karma Bowl. The Falcons took offense when Ndamukong Suh allegedly celebrated Matt Ryan's ankle injury during an October game between the teams last season. Suh called the injury "karma" for the Falcons' allegedly dirty tactics. Good teams and bad blood should make for good theater.

2. Denver Broncos at Atlanta Falcons, Week 2. Peyton Manning's first post-Indy appearance on "Monday Night Football" takes him to Atlanta for only the third time in his career. The Falcons are a footnote in this matchup. Manning plays only one indoor game during the 2012 regular season. This is it.

3. Carolina Panthers at Philadelphia Eagles, Week 12. Neither team had a winning record last season, but who cares? This game presents a chance to see Cam Newton and Michael Vick on the same night in the same stadium for the first time -- assuming they're both healthy enough to play after running around, into and through defenses for two-plus months.

4. Chicago Bears at San Francisco 49ers, Week 11. Patrick Willis vs. Matt Forte. Brian Urlacher vs. Frank Gore. Expect a physical game and a big test for Jay Cutler on the road. The 49ers have arguably the NFL's best defense and they'll be eager to show it in prime time.

5. Green Bay Packers at Seattle Seahawks, Week 3. Two NFC West teams on the list? What is this, the NFC West blog? Yes, but this one's legit. Few venues can approach Seattle for atmosphere, especially in prime time. And this game marks Green Bay's lone appearance on Monday night. The Matt Flynn storyline adds interest.

In the relief and euphoria of his long-awaited contract extension, linebacker Lance Briggs described the Chicago Bears' offseason as "a miracle" and one that "on paper" has put him on the Bears' best team since he arrived in 2003. So as long as we're talking about ideal scenarios, we should consider what could be next for the NFC North's most active team this offseason.

From a contract perspective, at least, the Bears have at least two significant issues to address. One is a resolution to their increasingly stark standoff with tailback Matt Forte. The other is the expiring contract of linebacker Brian Urlacher.

Forte has not signed his franchise tag tender of $7.74 million for 2012, and without an injury waiver he'll be ineligible to participate in offseason workouts. ESPN's Adam Schefter reported this week that Forte won't sign anything until he agrees to a long-term contract extension, which makes it quite possible the Bears won't see him again for a while.

One way or the other, someone will have to budge if Forte is going to be on the field when training camp begins at the end of July. By most accounts, the sides aren't close.

"He knows what his value is, and I think we all know what his value is," Briggs said, adding that he supports Forte's current stance.

Urlacher, meanwhile, is in the final year of a deal the Bears upgraded and extended in the summer of 2008. He'll earn $7.5 million in base salary with an opportunity earn a $500,000 workout bonus. It's hard to imagine the Bears doing anything other than extending him until they deem him unfit to play, and so his situation becomes a matter of timing more than anything.

Will the Bears let Urlacher play out the season with the understanding he will get a new contract next winter? Or will they move to extend sometime in the next five months before the 2012 season begins? For obvious reasons, players prefer security rather than waiting, especially for someone like Urlacher, who has no desire to play elsewhere.

"I think the Bears will do right by him," Briggs said. "He's coming off a great year. Hopefully we can play until we're 49 years old, if that's possible."

Hey Lance, we're talking about the ideal scenario, not fantasy.

Lance Briggs had no leverage last summer when he asked the Chicago Bears for a contract upgrade. As we discussed at the time, the midpoint of a market-level contract isn't typically a time when teams look to renegotiate.

Briggs had two choices when the Bears rejected his request. He could flip out and make himself into a yearlong distraction. Or he could buckle down and provide the Bears one more illustration of why he is a player worthy of further investment.

Briggs chose the latter, and I have to believe that decision at least partially explains why the Bears circled back and complied Wednesday with a new deal that settles Briggs' concerns for the foreseeable future. The numbers were not monumental -- Briggs got about a $2.5 million raise for 2012 and would earn $5.5 million in 2013, according to multiple reports -- and for the Bears it was a relatively cheap way to demonstrate loyalty to a cornerstone player who just wanted a little love.

"I'm grateful," Briggs said in a conference call with reporters. "I'm just very appreciative right now that the work has been recognized and that it got handled as fast as it did. … We all had a number in our head and they had the same number."

Briggs earned his seventh Pro Bowl honor in 2011, but just as impressive to me was the fact that he played in every Bears defensive snap from the beginning of the season to the end. Pushing through minor injuries is probably the best way for a player to demonstrate a commitment to the team. Briggs did his part, and as it turns out, all he was looking for was the most modest of rewards. If all it took was a few million dollars to placate a key player, it was a no-brainer for the Bears to comply.

Briggs was the first to admit that his contract was a unique situation, so this is not to suggest that Bears tailback Matt Forte would benefit from a similar strategy. It will take much more money to satisfy Forte than it did Briggs. And if Forte sits back and plays under his franchise tag in 2012, the Bears wouldn't be any more compelled to offer him the rich extension he is apparently seeking.

But in Briggs' case, at this moment, there was no real crisis, and neither side treated it as one after last summer's theatrics. And voila, here we are. As is the case in so many of these "issues," all's well that ends well.

Earlier: Briggs' contract was one of several Big Decisions facing NFC North teams this offseason.

Dennis of Michigan asked during Tuesday's SportsNation chat if Chicago Bears tailback Matt Forte had a right to be upset with the state of his long-term contract negotiations. My response remained the same as it has been for some time: It's hard to make a judgment without knowing the terms that have been exchanged. In full:

Forte

What we don't know is the exact value of what the Bears have offered, and what he's turned down. Has there been no agreement because the Bears haven't made him a serious offer? Or is it because he is seeking to be one of the top 2-3 highest-paid running backs in the game? We don't know that. I don't think Forte should be mad that the Bears have spent money on his backup unless they aren't offering him a fair deal. A fair deal, to me, would be something north of what the Seahawks paid Marshawn Lynch.

We might not know those terms, but ESPN analyst Andrew Brandt offers a glimpse into what would be a fair agreement based on current precedent and the state of the market. In his latest ESPN.com column, Brandt suggests there is a deal to be made if both sides agree to use the structure of a five-year, $43 million deal that DeAngelo Williams signed last summer with the Carolina Panthers. That deal includes $21 million in guarantees; Lynch received $18 million guaranteed over a four-year extension.

So using Brandt's analysis, we can say that Forte has a right to be upset if the Bears have come in south of Williams/Lynch money. But if he has rejected that deal, or something slightly higher, then it's possible he has overvalued himself in the market. As Brandt notes, the franchise tag the Bears used on Forte will make it difficult for him to achieve an elite-level running back contract like the one the Minnesota Vikings signed Adrian Peterson to last summer. That deal included $36 million in guarantees over seven years. Stay tuned.

Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice said he wants to attend the team's offseason workouts and training camp. Whether he actually participates in them hasn't been determined.

Rice, who has yet to sign his franchise tag, isn't obligated to show up for any team activity. Many players choose not to attend to protest the tag, and others skip them to avoid getting injured while playing under a one-year contract.

“Me and my agent have been going over things and what we’re going to do is figure out what’s best for us going forward,” Rice told the team's official website. “We haven’t made a decision. As far as we know, we look forward to being [at offseason workouts]. Maybe it will be under some terms, whether I sign the tag or not. But I want to be there. I like to be around my guys.”

Rice made it clear he's due for a new contract. “Everybody knows I outplayed my contract," he said. "It’s not a hidden agenda. I think the Ravens have a history of taking care of their guys.”

ESPN.com's Andrew Brandt wrote an interesting piece on how negotiations with running backs can be tricky because there's no position with a shorter average career.

Of course, Rice figured into the discussion along with the Bears' Matt Forte. What stood out is how Rice could hold the key in whether he gets a long-term deal or gets the tag again next season. Here's what Brandt had to say:

"My sense is the Ravens and Bears would be willing to commit to the level of contract [Marshawn] Lynch and [Arian] Foster commanded. But if Rice and Forte are intent on reaching the level of the [Chris] Johnson and [Adrian] Peterson deals, the tag might persist."

The ballpark for Lynch and Foster is around $20 million guaranteed. The neighborhood for Johnson and Peterson is much pricier at $30 million.

Rice denied a previous report that he's seeking a deal similar to the one signed by Peterson but he did allude to contracts recently signed by other running backs.

“I didn’t set the number for what the running backs got paid,” Rice said. “There’s other guys that got paid before me with lesser stats, lesser numbers, or maybe the same productivity. I didn’t set that number.”

NFL executives and coaches descended on their annual meetings last week, just three months removed from the most prolific passing season in NFL history. Quarterback play has never had a more direct link to team success, and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith could stride confidently through the halls of the Breakers Hotel knowing he has a high performer who should be entering the prime of his career.

Which brings up an interesting dichotomy. Smith, of course, is the coach who for years described his team as one that "gets off the bus running." He appeared to change course in 2010 by hiring pass-happy offensive coordinator Mike Martz, but for two years he and Martz played tug-of-war over the Bears' schematic focus. Martz is now retired, replaced by former offensive line coach Mike Tice -- who once famously referred to Chicago as a "tough guy town" that required a power running game to succeed -- and the Bears appear headed for another offensive re-set.

So here's the question: How much will the Bears pull back on their passing attack to satisfy Smith's philosophical requirements in the running game? The Bears' offseason moves to this point don't give us a clear idea, so the owners meetings seemed like a good time to ask Smith directly.

Yes, the Bears acquired Pro Bowl receiver Brandon Marshall, giving quarterback Jay Cutler the first true downfield threat of his Bears tenure. But they also guaranteed $7 million to their new backup tailback. New general manager Phil Emery would not have allocated the resources it took to sign Michael Bush if he weren't confident that Smith needed two high-quality running backs (along with starter Matt Forte) for his offense.

He didn't say it in so many words last week, but it seems clear that Smith wants to open the 2012 season with the compromise he eventually worked out with Martz in each of the past two seasons. In 2011, in fact, it led to almost a 50-50 pass-run ratio that corresponded with a five-game winning streak.

"During the course of the season," Smith said, "our offense had a different look from time to time. When we leaned on the run, we could move the ball as well as anyone. … As far as how much different it will look, I think we'll just see consistently what we want to be, a little more than occasionally. More that as much as anything."

You might remember that the Bears threw on a higher percentage of their plays last September than any team in the NFL. Smith and Tice eventually persuaded Martz to balance his play-calling, and as the chart shows, the Bears didn't throw more than 32 passes in any game during that winning streak. But they also didn't tilt too far toward the run, with the exception of a windy Week 10 blowout of the Detroit Lions.

If I had to guess what the Bears will try to accomplish this season, that five-game window is the snapshot. If anything, Smith wants to maintain the course correction that Martz accepted only in fits and starts over the past two years. Tice has a professed love for the power running game, and Smith said simply: "Our philosophies mesh."

Smith added: "[Martz] and I had a long background together. So I knew what I was getting at the time. So, when I say 'philosophies mesh,' I'm talking about the direction I want to go now as we go forward. I knew what we were getting into. I wanted Mike, and I knew exactly what he would bring to the table. No more than that. Going forward, I felt like that was the direction we wanted to go with personnel and our running back position, and what I felt we needed to do to get back to where we belong. So, no more than that."

That's about as close as you're going to get to hearing Smith say he plans to do something differently. I don't mind saying I was in favor of Smith's initial decision to hire Martz, mostly because the Bears weren't in a position to make a gradual shift to an untested offensive coordinator or scheme. I just thought Smith would achieve better and more consistent oversight than he did.

That shouldn't be a problem with Tice, who is as strong-willed as Martz but more likely to push in Smith's direction.

The Bears are competing in a division that features two of the most explosive passing offenses in the NFL, the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions. I'm not sure whether the Bears will be able to compete throw for throw with either team, but I'm positive they don't want to. What the Bears hope to achieve is the NFC North's most balanced offense. They are well on their way.

» AFC Assessments: East | West | North | South » NFC: East | West | North | South

Chicago Bears

Key additions: Running back Michael Bush, linebacker/special teams Blake Costanzo, quarterback Jason Campbell, receiver Brandon Marshall (trade), receiver Devin Thomas, receiver/returner Eric Weems.

Key losses: Running back Marion Barber (retired), cornerback Zack Bowman, cornerback Corey Graham.

Come on back: Lost in the shuffle of the Marshall trade were the return of three free agents who should play key roles in 2012. Tight end Kellen Davis figures to get an expanded role in offensive coordinator Mike Tice's scheme, especially as a receiver. Cornerback Tim Jennings should retain his starting role opposite Charles Tillman, with D.J. Moore in the nickel. And safety Craig Steltz will provide reliable depth at safety and will be one of the Bears' special teams leaders after the departure of Graham and Bowman.

What's next: There is no urgency yet, but the Bears will need to make peace with tailback Matt Forte at some point before the summer. Forte isn't happy that he's been made the Bears' franchise player and briefly lost his public composure when Bush signed a deal that guaranteed him about the same amount of money as the franchise tag will pay Forte. It's not a big deal if Forte skips the Bears' offseason program or even misses a few days of training camp, but the Bears will want to find a way to eliminate this issue by early August. Meanwhile, it wouldn't be surprising if the Bears address their offensive line during the draft.

Detroit Lions

Key additions: Defensive end Everette Brown, cornerback Jacob Lacey.

Key losses: Cornerback Eric Wright.

All in the family: With the exception of Wright, the Lions were able to retain the core of their 10-6 team. Among those who re-signed: Tackle Jeff Backus, safety Erik Coleman, defensive end Andre Fluellen, quarterback Shaun Hill and linebacker Stephen Tulloch. And don't forget that receiver Calvin Johnson is locked up for perhaps the rest of his career. He signed a new eight-year contract worth $132 million.

What's next: The Lions appear interested in adding competition at safety, having hosted free agent O.J. Atogwe earlier this month. Adding a safety remains a possibility, if not through free agency, then probably through the draft. And while Backus is re-signed for two years, it wouldn't be surprising if the Lions look for a long-term replacement in the draft.

Green Bay Packers

Key additions: Defensive lineman Daniel Muir, center Jeff Saturday, defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove.

Key losses: Quarterback Matt Flynn, center Scott Wells.

Shocker: The Packers usually do whatever it takes to keep their own players and avoid having to search the free-agent market for other the castoffs of other teams. They started off that way by re-signing tight end Jermichael Finley to a two-year contract, but when they were unable to sign center Scott Wells, they quickly targeted veteran Jeff Saturday and made him their first starting-caliber free-agent signee in five years. General manager Ted Thompson also authorized the acquisition of Hargrove and the pursuit of Dave Tollefson.

What's next: It's not out of the question that the Packers will add a veteran pass-rusher, whether at defensive end or linebacker. Then they'll get back into their comfort zone and start preparing for the draft, where it's reasonable to think they'll use at least one of their 12 picks on a center while also continuing to pursue pass-rushers.

Minnesota Vikings

Key additions: Cornerback Zack Bowman, tight end John Carlson, running back Jerome Felton and offensive lineman Geoff Schwartz.

Key losses: Nose tackle Remi Ayodele (release), guards Anthony Herrera (release) and Steve Hutchinson (release), tight end Jim Kleinsasser (retire), running back Jerome Felton.

Methodical methodology: The Vikings made one big-money signing, bringing in Carlson as a new weapon for quarterback Christian Ponder, and otherwise have spent their offseason getting younger and signing complementary players. General manager Rick Spielman wants to end a cycle of seeking blue-chip players via free agency and instead count on the drafts for his difference-makers.

What's next: One way or the other, the Vikings need to find a deep threat for Ponder. The draft would seem the most likely place for that will happen. They are also midway through a rebuild of the secondary that could use at least one more cornerback and perhaps two safeties.

The "NFL Live" crew breaks down the Bears' signing of Michael Bush and what that means for Matt Forte.

It appears that former Chicago Bears tight end Greg Olsen gave us some pretty accurate insight into the mind-set of current Bears tailback Matt Forte.

It seems clear, via Twitter, that Forte didn't take it well Thursday when the Bears signed tailback Michael Bush to a four-year contract worth $14 million, including $7 million guaranteed. Forte, who was named the Bears' franchise player this month in lieu of a long-term deal, dropped the dreaded "d" word.

Forte: "There's only so many times a man that has done everything he's been asked to do can be disrespected! Guess the GOOD GUYS do finish last...."

*UPDATE: Forte's agent, Adisa Bakari, offered some context to the tweet in a statement to ESPNChicago.com's Michael C. Wright. Bakari: "Since drafting Matt in 2008, the Bears have signed Kevin Jones, Chester Taylor and Marion Barber, all ostensibly to serve as Matt's backup. To sign yet another running back, prior to completing a contract with Matt suggests disregard for Matt and his contributions to the Bears."

Unfortunately, we don't have the full set of facts to render our own judgment. We know the Bears guaranteed Bush ($7 million) roughly the same amount as Forte would be paid ($7.74 million) as a franchise player this year. We also know the Bears have now issued multi-year deals to veteran backups in each of the past three years.

What we don't know, and it's a rather big piece of the puzzle, is what Forte has turned down. Negotiations have taken place on and off for more than a year. If the Bears were somehow offering Forte less, or about the same, as they have given Chester Taylor, Marion Barber and Bush, then Forte would have a legitimate argument.

But if Forte is upset because the Bears haven't offered him an elite contract that approaches, say, $25-$30 million in guarantees, then the Bush signing should have nothing to do with his angst. He might be upset with the Bears for not valuing him as an elite back, and could perhaps make an argument that he deserves that payday. But a market-level deal for a backup is a separate issue altogether.

As we all know, reason and rational thought don't always rule contract negotiations. What's important is that Forte is among the Bears' best players, one they have built their offense around in recent years, and he's not happy. That's a problem for the Bears, regardless of whether Forte's anger is well-grounded or unfounded.

Man, running back really is a funny position these days in the NFL, isn't it? Last week, Mike Tolbert, who has 303 carries and 19 touchdowns over the past two seasons, signed a free-agent deal to be a fullback on a Carolina Panthers team that has two starting-caliber tailbacks. Thursday, Michael Bush, who had 977 rushing yards and 418 receiving yards in 2011, signed a free-agent deal with the Bears, who have designated star running back Matt Forte as their franchise player.

I have New York Giants asking me what all of this means for Brandon Jacobs, who was released a couple of weeks ago after he and the Giants couldn't agree on the size of the pay cut he would take in order to remain on the team. A lot of people think the slow and weird running back market means Jacobs is likely to return to the Giants, since it portends a lack of opportunity to find a better deal elsewhere. I think that's possible, but I don't think it's that cut and dried. I think it comes down to whether there's a team out there that has a specific role in mind for Jacobs.

Of the top 15 running backs (according to our Scouts Inc. grades) who hit the open market when free agency opened last Tuesday, Bush is just the fourth to sign. And all four have been backs who spent 2011 in time-share or backup roles. (Jacobs ranks No. 3 on this list, since I'm not counting the two guys at the top who got franchised and therefore didn't hit the open market.)

What's it all mean? Well, teams have come to realize that there's not much value in throwing big free-agent bucks at running backs when good ones can be found in the middle and late rounds of the draft. But it also shows that running back beauty today is very much in the eye of the beholder.

If you're a free-agent running back on this year's market, you need to hope some team has a very specific role or job in mind for you. The Panthers wanted Tolbert because they saw in him a fullback who could pick up big yards for them in short-yardage spots or at the goal line. The Bears wanted Bush because ... well, they always seem to want a high-profile backup behind Forte since they don't like to give Forte the goal-line carries. Also, it's possible Forte could hold out, demand a trade or refuse to sign his franchise tender. Forte's unhappy in Chicago, and the Bears helped their leverage by signing a guy who showed he could handle starter's duties last year in Oakland when Darren McFadden got hurt.

Jacobs wouldn't have fit either of those roles, which is why he's not a Panther or a Bear. But that doesn't mean there's not a team out there who sees Jacobs as a fit for what they need in their backfield. He brings some things other running backs don't bring. He's by far the biggest and most physical back on that Scouts Inc. list, taller and heavier than even the guys who are being signed for fullback roles. He's as physical a runner as there is in the league, and he's got open-field speed that befits a much smaller guy. No, he's not the same terrifying force he was earlier in his career, but he can help, as he did the Giants in 2011. He's also got two Super Bowl rings, which is something I'm fairly certain no one else on the list can claim. And yeah, that kind of thing does appeal to teams.

The Giants have a spot for him -- in the same championship time-share in which he spent 2011 with his buddy Ahmad Bradshaw. They haven't filled it yet, and as the central point of this post indicates, there's no rush for them to do so. If Jacobs decides he wants to go back and take the offer they gave him two weeks ago, there's a decent chance that spot will still be waiting for him. But he's not in any rush either. There are still teams with holes in their backfields, and one of those teams might just decide Jacobs is the guy they want. Running back is a strange and sl0w-moving market this year, and I don't think we can know anything just yet about where Jacobs fits into it, and whether he goes back to the Giants or not.

In our previous post, we discussed the potential impact of Michael Bush's arrival in Chicago on the Bears' negotiations with tailback Matt Forte. I wasn't ready to consider it a legitimate affront to Forte, who reportedly has turned down a more lucrative offer than what Bush received, but it's worth adding a player's perspective.

Via Twitter, former Bears tight end Greg Olsen made clear that Forte would be well within his rights to be upset. Bush is the third backup running back to receive a multiyear contract from the Bears in as many years, following Marion Barber and Chester Taylor. Olsen:

If u have a studd 3 down guy like @MattForte22 why keep paying backups big $ every yr? Crazy!! Matt deserves better.

— Greg Olsen (@gregolsen82) March 22, 2012

When a follower asked if Olsen was bitter because the Bears weren't willing to offer him a multiyear deal and eventually traded him, Olsen responded: "wrong [couldn't] be happier in Carolina. Just pointing out how its viewed around league."

You can agree or disagree with Olsen's reasoning, especially as it relates to having a reliable backup running back at one of the most physical positions in the game. But a number of Bears players stepped forward last season on the topic, and I think Olsen gives us a fair glimpse of how an NFL player views the standoff between the Bears and Forte. And let's just say it won't endear the team's position to any of them.

A number of wild theories began circulating in the moments after the Chicago Bears announced a four-year contract agreement with running back Michael Bush. So let's do our best to sift through what the deal does -- and, just as importantly, doesn't -- mean.

• Bush is the Bears' best attempt yet at finding a reliable backup to starter Matt Forte, one whose skills offer the team more complete coverage from the position. We've noted several times that Forte doesn't perform well in short-yardage and goal-to-go situations. Last season, Bush scored seven touchdowns for the Oakland Raiders on goal-to-go downs, according to ESPN Stats & Information. Chester Taylor failed as Forte's backup in 2010, and Marion Barber (2011) figures to follow him out the door shortly.
• Bush got a nice contract that could top out at $14 million and includes $7 million guaranteed. That's better than backup money, but Bush is better than your standard backup. He started 19 games in four seasons with the Raiders.
• That money suggests the Bears felt they needed protection against a possible holdout from Forte, who hasn't agreed to a long-term deal and hasn't signed his franchise tender. We're a long way from that point, but midsummer is not the time to start scrambling for insurance. The best options are available now.
• Some of you might think Forte would be annoyed to see a third consecutive veteran walk through the door with a multiyear contract while he awaits one himself. It's true that Taylor ($7 million) earned more than him in 2010, as did Barber ($2.5m) in 2011. This year, Bush's $7 million guarantee is close to the $7.74 million franchise tag that Forte will play under if he doesn't agree to a longer deal. But I think the Bears are willing to pay Forte more than his backup. Whether they are willing to pay him what he wants is another question.
• Regardless, I don't think Bush's arrival will make Forte any more or less likely to hold out. He has a number he wants the Bears to get to. Will it make the Bears less likely to meet that number because they have Bush? They might want Forte to think so, but ultimately they know they need Forte in their lineup.
• When you hear the name "Michael Bush," many of you think of the terrible broken leg he suffered in 2006 as a senior at Louisville. The injury required the insertion of a steel rod and essentially cost him two years of football. But since returning to the field in 2008, he has played in 61 out of a possible 64 games.
• The Brandon Marshall trade will define the Bears' offseason, but no less impressive has been their determination to beef up depth with highly paid veterans. Bush is the most notable example, but it's worth pointing out that backup quarterback Jason Campbell will earn $3.4 million, while kick returner Eric Weems got a $1.5 million signing bonus on top of a $700,000 base salary.