Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

UPDATE: Cedric Benson signs with Green Bay
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TedThompson


Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 802
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackFan4Life wrote:

In past years I would have agreed with this, however, I think the right side of this line, if healthy (Sitton was not for much of the season and Bulaga missed time), is going to make the rushing attack respectable this year. I go back to the first play of family night, Starks takes the ball wide right and flat out misses the cutback lane, his mind was already made up. Benson probably makes that cut and gets 4-5 yards. Starks got stopped wide for little. I certainly like the tandem of Lang and Newhouse on the left side in year two together as well. Much better run line without Clifton and a more seasoned Lang and Newhouse on the other side and hopefully a healthy Sitton and Bulaga. 3rd and 1 suddenly does become a potential run down with a decent runner behind this healthy group.

Hope so. We'll see. I still don't see this OL as a better-than-average group of run-blockers. I think their makeup, their mentality as "pass-protectors" might have a lot to do with it.
_________________
"It's the same old Jay," Woodson told ESPN afterward. "We just need to be in position. Jay will throw us the ball."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13518
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ketchup wrote:
justo wrote:
I pretty much think we are going to use him to eat at clock so the wear on Green/Starks/Saine lessens. Use him like we should have used Grant last year
Grant isn't that kind of back though. He's not a clock killer. He typically got better as the game went on with a good amount of carries. He's not a guy u put in for a series or two to kill clock because well, he's not any good at it.
I know I just didn't like that we didn't run his legs into the ground when we were up. We could have used that last year on his contract much better IMO
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Willink


Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 11630
Location: Rochester, NY
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TedThompson wrote:
PackFan4Life wrote:

In past years I would have agreed with this, however, I think the right side of this line, if healthy (Sitton was not for much of the season and Bulaga missed time), is going to make the rushing attack respectable this year. I go back to the first play of family night, Starks takes the ball wide right and flat out misses the cutback lane, his mind was already made up. Benson probably makes that cut and gets 4-5 yards. Starks got stopped wide for little. I certainly like the tandem of Lang and Newhouse on the left side in year two together as well. Much better run line without Clifton and a more seasoned Lang and Newhouse on the other side and hopefully a healthy Sitton and Bulaga. 3rd and 1 suddenly does become a potential run down with a decent runner behind this healthy group.

Hope so. We'll see. I still don't see this OL as a better-than-average group of run-blockers. I think their makeup, their mentality as "pass-protectors" might have a lot to do with it.


Cincinnati's run blocking was worse than ours over the past three years according to FO.
_________________

Quote:
If I have not lost my mind I can sometimes hear it preparing to defect
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fired-Up


Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 788
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not quite sure what Benson's role will be. I'm assuming he will be the feature back. Since that's what he's been during his career and we don't have any other real option.

A typical Beson day is 20 carries and 70 yards. Maybe a TD every other game. The man has never had a run over 50 yards in over 1500 attempts. That boggles my brain. His career YPC is just 3.8. It's obvious he's a volume back, but this is not a volume running team.

How does 3 yards and a cloud of dust back fit this system? I'd be looking for a scatback with impact in the passing game and more of a low carry, higher YPC back. We really don't need a feature, carry the load back like Benson.
_________________
The Packers are the premier franchise in the NFL. DEAL WITH IT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 5026
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fired-Up wrote:
I'm not quite sure what Benson's role will be. I'm assuming he will be the feature back. Since that's what he's been during his career and we don't have any other real option.

A typical Beson day is 20 carries and 70 yards. Maybe a TD every other game. The man has never had a run over 50 yards in over 1500 attempts. That boggles my brain. His career YPC is just 3.8. It's obvious he's a volume back, but this is not a volume running team.

How does 3 yards and a cloud of dust back fit this system? I'd be looking for a scatback with impact in the passing game and more of a low carry, higher YPC back. We really don't need a feature, carry the load back like Benson.


Like a Sproles? Yeah, that'd be nice. Possibly something TT looks for this year.

We want someone reliable. Someone who can wear the defensive line down. Benson brings that.
_________________
Bolstrikes wrote:
Ben makes his receivers a lot better then Rodgers does. I think Rodgers gets way more to work with and don't feel he's better then Ben. Rodgers gets better surrounding talent and a better system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hurricane_Seasn


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 150
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

still not understanding the logic here in signing a 29 year old power back who averages less than 4 ypc for his career. there were already 4 rbs on the roster not including Kuhn who is our short yardage back. meanwhile Marc Tyler sitting 4th on the depth chart 6 years younger and in theory a very similar back to Benson. and to everyone who is just saying he doesnt need to be focal point in the offense and that he can be used to keep the defense honest, what do you think Grant had been doing up until he got hurt? and Starks for that matter. no one asked James Starks to step in and carry the ball 20 times a game to establish a running game, hes been a facilitator to our passing game, doing the same thing you all are claiming we need Benson here for. Cedric isnt a big play threat, so how is he keeping the D honest averaging 3.8 ypc with no home run capability?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4206
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurricane_Seasn wrote:
still not understanding the logic here in signing a 29 year old power back who averages less than 4 ypc for his career. there were already 4 rbs on the roster not including Kuhn who is our short yardage back. meanwhile Marc Tyler sitting 4th on the depth chart 6 years younger and in theory a very similar back to Benson. and to everyone who is just saying he doesnt need to be focal point in the offense and that he can be used to keep the defense honest, what do you think Grant had been doing up until he got hurt? and Starks for that matter. no one asked James Starks to step in and carry the ball 20 times a game to establish a running game, hes been a facilitator to our passing game, doing the same thing you all are claiming we need Benson here for. Cedric isnt a big play threat, so how is he keeping the D honest averaging 3.8 ypc with no home run capability?


And he fumbles too. You forgot that part.

I think it is more an admission the staff does not have any faith in the prospect of a healthy Starks, Green or Saine for anymore than a two game stretch. Laughing Just saying.

Starks has not shown any inclination to be anymore than just adequate when it comes to supporting the passing game. He has not taken more of an interest in pass protection, something I was very much stating was a must for him going into this next camp. Saine was the one taking that initiative, and then he got predictably hurt. Green is coming off a major knee surgery so there is always legitimate pause there. The others? They have looked like training camp fodder moreso than NFL Tailbacks. Why they chose Benson over Grant is not something I am comfortable with at all however, but I will trust they saw something left in the tank there that they did not see in Grant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pimatt082985


Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 661
Location: Austin, TX
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fired-Up wrote:
I'm not quite sure what Benson's role will be. I'm assuming he will be the feature back. Since that's what he's been during his career and we don't have any other real option.

A typical Beson day is 20 carries and 70 yards. Maybe a TD every other game. The man has never had a run over 50 yards in over 1500 attempts. That boggles my brain. His career YPC is just 3.8. It's obvious he's a volume back, but this is not a volume running team.

How does 3 yards and a cloud of dust back fit this system? I'd be looking for a scatback with impact in the passing game and more of a low carry, higher YPC back. We really don't need a feature, carry the load back like Benson.


Since he doesn't have any long runs, yet still has a 3.8 YPC then it looks like he gets 3 to 4 yards on a consistent basis per carry. He doesn't have long runs to offset the balance of 1 to 2 yard carries. At least not that often.

This would allow one to believe that with that kind of production is all our offense needs to be put in much more favorable 2nd and 3rd down matchups, which the packers can take advantage of more than any other team with the rest of our threats. Also, like mentioned before 3 to 4 yard a carry is enough to put the game on ice when we have a lead and need the defense on the sideline, so they stay fresh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13927
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurricane_Seasn wrote:
still not understanding the logic here in signing a 29 year old power back who averages less than 4 ypc for his career. there were already 4 rbs on the roster not including Kuhn who is our short yardage back. meanwhile Marc Tyler sitting 4th on the depth chart 6 years younger and in theory a very similar back to Benson. and to everyone who is just saying he doesnt need to be focal point in the offense and that he can be used to keep the defense honest, what do you think Grant had been doing up until he got hurt? and Starks for that matter. no one asked James Starks to step in and carry the ball 20 times a game to establish a running game, hes been a facilitator to our passing game, doing the same thing you all are claiming we need Benson here for. Cedric isnt a big play threat, so how is he keeping the D honest averaging 3.8 ypc with no home run capability?


My first take on this thing also. Then I got to thinkin. Am I going to cry about the backs they end up cutting.

Answer......NOPE!

Not like they are going to cut Green and I could truly care less who they pick after that. They all have some pros and cons on each other but it's not as if they are letting an elite talent get out of camp. More about them finding the right combination of role players.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wgbeethree


Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 3159
Location: Denver, CO via Racine, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurricane_Seasn wrote:
still not understanding the logic here in signing a 29 year old power back who averages less than 4 ypc for his career. there were already 4 rbs on the roster not including Kuhn who is our short yardage back. meanwhile Marc Tyler sitting 4th on the depth chart 6 years younger and in theory a very similar back to Benson. and to everyone who is just saying he doesnt need to be focal point in the offense and that he can be used to keep the defense honest, what do you think Grant had been doing up until he got hurt? and Starks for that matter. no one asked James Starks to step in and carry the ball 20 times a game to establish a running game, hes been a facilitator to our passing game, doing the same thing you all are claiming we need Benson here for. Cedric isnt a big play threat, so how is he keeping the D honest averaging 3.8 ypc with no home run capability?


Don't think it's much more than "availability and accountability". It's MM's credo. If he gives us almost the same exact thing as Starks does on the field at least he's more likely to do it for 16+ games. Starks has consistently practiced poorly and gotten injured. Someone who produces the same on the field, stays healthy, and puts forth the effort to practice hard and learn his assignment might just be worth an extra $300k. Even if it does nothing more than light a fire under Starks it's a good signing. If Benson doesn't work out you cut him at no cost.
_________________

TytybearsFan21 wrote:
Justo knows nothing about sportz

justo wrote:
I would be a terrible coach/anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
{Family Ghost}


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope Benson takes this opportunity and runs with it. I'd like to see him be the main back and get the vast majority of the carries. As we've seen with Starks he will just continue to get hurt and leave the Packers in a pinch. You have to have a #1 back that can be counted on when it comes to durability . Starks can't be counted on for that. He's constantly battling some issue.

Green stands a chance of eventually being the top back, but he's got to prove he can be counted on. McCarthy preaches "availability", and the Packers just didn't have that guy in the backfield. Benson has at least been durable. I also think he stands a pretty fair chance of turning in a good season in GB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hurricane_Seasn


Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 150
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wgbeethree wrote:
Hurricane_Seasn wrote:
still not understanding the logic here in signing a 29 year old power back who averages less than 4 ypc for his career. there were already 4 rbs on the roster not including Kuhn who is our short yardage back. meanwhile Marc Tyler sitting 4th on the depth chart 6 years younger and in theory a very similar back to Benson. and to everyone who is just saying he doesnt need to be focal point in the offense and that he can be used to keep the defense honest, what do you think Grant had been doing up until he got hurt? and Starks for that matter. no one asked James Starks to step in and carry the ball 20 times a game to establish a running game, hes been a facilitator to our passing game, doing the same thing you all are claiming we need Benson here for. Cedric isnt a big play threat, so how is he keeping the D honest averaging 3.8 ypc with no home run capability?


Don't think it's much more than "availability and accountability". It's MM's credo. If he gives us almost the same exact thing as Starks does on the field at least he's more likely to do it for 16+ games. Starks has consistently practiced poorly and gotten injured. Someone who produces the same on the field, stays healthy, and puts forth the effort to practice hard and learn his assignment might just be worth an extra $300k. Even if it does nothing more than light a fire under Starks it's a good signing. If Benson doesn't work out you cut him at no cost.


i definitely see your point regarding consistency, but i just fell like its mediocre consistency. if the Benson signing never happened and we were left with Starks, Green, Saine, and Tyler and the Starks goes down, whose to say that Tyler or Green couldnt be plugged in to avg 3.8 a carry? as for the pass protection quality with Benson, having lived in Columbus for the last 10 years ive unforunatly have had the TURRIBLE pleasure of being forced to watch countless Luckeye, i mean, Buckeye games over the years, and Brandon Saine is one hell of a pass protector. that just took a lot for me to say complimenting any osu player. yes, theyre all a little banged up, but i seem to remember a certain super bowl run a couple of years ago with injury problems. i think it turned out just fine...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TedThompson


Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 802
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurricane_Seasn wrote:

i definitely see your point regarding consistency, but i just fell like its mediocre consistency. if the Benson signing never happened and we were left with Starks, Green, Saine, and Tyler and the Starks goes down, whose to say that Tyler or Green couldnt be plugged in to avg 3.8 a carry? as for the pass protection quality with Benson, having lived in Columbus for the last 10 years ive unforunatly have had the TURRIBLE pleasure of being forced to watch countless Luckeye, i mean, Buckeye games over the years, and Brandon Saine is one hell of a pass protector. that just took a lot for me to say complimenting any osu player. yes, theyre all a little banged up, but i seem to remember a certain super bowl run a couple of years ago with injury problems. i think it turned out just fine...

Here's the key: McCarthy doesn't need a great or even super good RB.
He just wants a guy who can stay healthy, stay available. That's it. He's tired of this guy being hurt, this guy going down, out, etc.
All he wants is a guy who can last. Who can be durable.

That's what he thinks he is getting from Cedric the Entertainer. Anything better than that would be a bonus. That's it.

I also like Saine, but.... see above.
_________________
"It's the same old Jay," Woodson told ESPN afterward. "We just need to be in position. Jay will throw us the ball."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13927
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benson has no ties in that contract. I have no clue why one would be upset with that deal RIGHT NOW. Let's see the man in the fit then debate if there might have been a better/younger RB to choose from.

MeThinks Benson is a much better runner than he is getting credit for. Might turn a few heads in this inside zone with no extras in the box.

Just sayin. At least let the man get his look. I have said for years that Benson is the biggest draft miss I have ever made. That's not to say he might not be a much better option than what's in house for specific needs at hand.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mission


Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Posts: 76
Location: atlanta
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packers need a guy who can convert in short yardage. How many times were they in shotgun on 3rd and 1? Benson is that guy. With Green presumably in a traditional 3rd down role, what else do we need?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group