Texans bringing in running back Cedric Benson

cloudwasher · #1 03-01-2009, 08:12 PM

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds. He did have three games last season with the Bengals where he got 100+ years, but if you got back and look at those games he didnt get better than 4.5 yards/carry in any of those games (Cle 38-171 Avg 4.5, Jac 24-104 Avg. 4.3, Kc 25-111 Avg 4.4). So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry. He might still be able to make some kind of comeback with some other team, but unless they can sign him for less than one mil a yr (unlikely) then he isn't worth it imo.

bckey · #2 03-01-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds. He did have three games last season with the Bengals where he got 100+ years, but if you got back and look at those games he didnt get better than 4.5 yards/carry in any of those games (Cle 38-171 Avg 4.5, Jac 24-104 Avg. 4.3, Kc 25-111 Avg 4.4). So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry. He might still be able to make some kind of comeback with some other team, but unless they can sign him for less than one mil a yr (unlikely) then he isn't worth it imo.

The other side of that is that they had no passing game this year and were a pretty crappy team. So for Benson to a 4.5, 4.4, and 4.3 avg. is really pretty good since teams were keying on him.

Joe Joe · #3 03-01-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry.

When Cedric Benson is your best offensive weapon, Cedric Benson rushing for 3.5 yds/carry ain't bad. It ain't good, but then again...Cedric Benson is not a star player. Cincy's once prolific passing attack is no more. Provided he doesn't think he's a top player, he may be a good cheap pickup. He may be able to be a good back for the system as he doesn't try for the big gainers and generally takes what the defense gives him.

Again, don't expect superman, but I think he would fit nicely as a backup if he stays out of trouble.

barrett · #4 03-01-2009, 09:44 PM

If he comes in as a short yardage guy he is not bad. Short yardage guys don't need to cutback run or make people miss. They need to start quick, get low, and stick it in there. If he can do that at not much gauranteed money, sign him. Then draft a guy low anyways and take the best one out of camp.

coloradodude · #5 03-01-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds.

Yep...and most of those numbers were David Carr numbers. Games were over.

dadmg · #6 03-01-2009, 10:57 PM

This sounds like a pretty bad, if inexpensive, idea.

barrett · #7 03-02-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadmg

This sounds like a pretty bad, if inexpensive, idea.

There is no such thing in football. IF a guy is inexpensive, he can't be a bad idea because he can be cut at any time. Some of you guys prefer a draft pick, why not both if the gauranteed money is low. Then let them fight for a spot. You cannot lose out when two guys fight for a spot instead of one being given it.

Now if his 3 game stretch with the bungles convinced him he deserves good money, don't even look at him. But if he can be had for little gauranteed, why not look?

dadmg · #8 03-02-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

There is no such thing in football. IF a guy is inexpensive, he can't be a bad idea because he can be cut at any time.

My thought (and I could be wildly wrong; wouldn't be the first time) is that if the front office picks up Benson they won't feel a need to bring in another backup running back. And I don't think Benson's the answer to any question I want to hear.

barrett · #9 03-02-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadmg

My thought (and I could be wildly wrong; wouldn't be the first time) is that if the front office picks up Benson they won't feel a need to bring in another backup running back. And I don't think Benson's the answer to any question I want to hear.

SO if they add Benson they go to camp with 2 RBs? There will be rookie RBs in camp no matter what. Even if they are camp fodder and are just carrying the ball in preseason games to keep the vets healthy, we will have rookies at RB.

If you can add a vet cheap you do it. Then you cut him if you see that a younger player can do the job better. NFL 101 right there.

Bigtinylittle · #10 03-02-2009, 02:29 PM

I am going to go ahead and predict that if we sign Ced, he will be the second best back we have had under Kubiak. Dayne might have been better on first and ten, especially toward the end of games, but Ced will be much better on third and one. I say if the price is right go for it.

dadmg · #11 03-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

If you can add a vet cheap you do it.

I agree with this in principle; I just don't feel the veteran they picked is worth it. Even with his draft pedigree holding him aloft, I'd be surprised if Benson's even still in the league two or three years from now. None of the free agent running backs look likely to set the world on fire, but I don't see any reason we should target an underachieving head case just to feel secure in our depth.

A further note: while its completely irrelevant to this argument (as its been set on the condition that he would be cheap), I'm beginning to wonder if that'll be the case. The Bengals, after the disastrous Chris Perry experiment, are trying to bring back Benson as their starter. A bidding war, even a relatively low-level one, over Benson makes me a bit nauseous.

gunslinger57 · #12 03-02-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coloradodude

Yep...and most of those numbers were David Carr numbers. Games were over.

The only way a RB would run up big numbers where "games were over" is when their team is running away with it and just trying to run out the clock. Cincy didn't have a lot of those last year. Seems to me that might have actually depressed his numbers a bit.

Joshua · #13 03-02-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunslinger57

The only way a RB would run up big numbers where "games were over" is when their team is running away with it and just trying to run out the clock. Cincy didn't have a lot of those last year. Seems to me that might have actually depressed his numbers a bit.

I didn't watch many Bengals games last year so I have no idea how he played. However, RBs can absolutely get garbage yards when their team is behind (particularly if they are behind by double digits). Defenses are generally more than happy to let a team run the ball and thus, prevent the big play and keep the clock running. That's why they are in the prevent D and have 5 or 6 DBs on the field.

Nconroe · #14 03-02-2009, 10:07 AM

if there isn't much up front guaranteed, then why not let him try out and see what is there. if it doesn't work, easy to cut in this league for now. for me , depends what kind of contract and guarantees being looked at. He might be that guy that helps us crack the end zone we couldn't seem to cross last year, as someone else mentioned.

John S · #15 03-02-2009, 10:48 AM

We should take if he comes on the cheap. At least he is under 30.

papabear · #16 03-02-2009, 11:37 AM

Like everyone else it all depends on the contract.