It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Cedric Benson...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Plainfield
For god's sake...can we please stop utilizing him as the #1? I'm watching the game right now and I have the following complaints?

1. He's slow
2. He's not strong enough to move the pile
3. I understand the line is pretty crap-tacular right now, but still...see #2
4. Adrian Peterson, although I wouldn't want him to be my #1 next year, seems to actually play like he's trying to do something, unlike benson, that seems like he's just going through the motions.

I've watched every game this year so far, and I keep hearing myself chant the same mantra every game I watch.

"Cedric Benson, you suck."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
FavreFan wrote:
Nas wrote:
Benson is running hard


If I were a Bears fan I would be way more upset with him than Rex or anyone on the team. He is easily one of the worst starting RBs in the NFL. He has maybe the worst vision out of any RB in the NFL. He just runs straight into the line every fucking time even though there is usually a hole open just a foot or two away. He never uses his quickness and speed to cut outside at all, he just plows straight into the line every time and like BD said he will occasionally break through for maybe 10 yds at the most. Seriously, can anybody who has seen more than 1 Packers game tell me the difference between him and Brandon Jackson?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:27 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
Yeah, but he runs hard.

Is that where we are really at ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:09 pm
Posts: 5275
Location: In the hospital....
Blender do you know Twister?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 6248
Location: Crown Point, Indiana (obviously)
Boy, I was wrong about this guy. I made a point of getting a real good look at him yesterday, and he does indeed suck. By far the most important thing is this:

1. He's slow

He's too fucking slow. At one point yesterday, he ran to the left side, and the hole closed, so he went to bounce it outside; when he did that, it looked like he'd be able to make it around the end, but as he got there, he stopped, tried to make a move, and was tackled for a loss. When I saw that, I knew that we have a guy that cannot make a play on his own; if he has a nice hole, he can get you some yards, but he will never be any better than average, and he'll likely just end up a huge bust.

Between his skills and his attitude, you have to wonder what they were thinking drafting this guy. They got to see him work out. They got to interview him. Between Benson and Grossman, I'm thinking that perhaps Angelo should bring in outside help when drafting skill-position guys.

_________________
You can't see me because of internet.

The landowner effectively owns part shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." -Roy L
A Personal Relationship with Jesus?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:24 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
They should bench him, but I highly doubt anything short of an injury will allow that to happen.

He's just not good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Plainfield
HappyHour Jason wrote:
Blender do you know Twister?


No I don't...should I? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Plainfield
BD wrote:
They should bench him, but I highly doubt anything short of an injury will allow that to happen.

He's just not good.


I was at least happy to see them utilizing Adrian Peterson more in the 2nd half yesterday. I KNOW The bears aren't going to make him a #1, but if he can get 40% of the carries, at least I know 40% of the time we have a CHANCE at making SOMETHING happen in the run game...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:18 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
Blender wrote:
BD wrote:
They should bench him, but I highly doubt anything short of an injury will allow that to happen.

He's just not good.


I was at least happy to see them utilizing Adrian Peterson more in the 2nd half yesterday. I KNOW The bears aren't going to make him a #1, but if he can get 40% of the carries, at least I know 40% of the time we have a CHANCE at making SOMETHING happen in the run game...


The question has got to be when, and not if he gets benched. He will be benched this year if he continues to average less than 3 yards a carry. Period.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Plainfield
BD wrote:
Blender wrote:
BD wrote:
They should bench him, but I highly doubt anything short of an injury will allow that to happen.

He's just not good.


I was at least happy to see them utilizing Adrian Peterson more in the 2nd half yesterday. I KNOW The bears aren't going to make him a #1, but if he can get 40% of the carries, at least I know 40% of the time we have a CHANCE at making SOMETHING happen in the run game...


The question has got to be when, and not if he gets benched. He will be benched this year if he continues to average less than 3 yards a carry. Period.


I sure as hell hope so. Seems that Smith is at least willing to bench peopl this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 2974
Location: who wants to know?
I think I already saw this movie earlier this year... The Bears annoint a first-round pick the starter without competition, said player then underperforms and shows a lack of understanding for all things football. Meanwhile, the veteran back-up who is obviously not the future but has shown in the past that he has the ability to be a solid contributor watches from the sidelines. The Bears finally decide that the experiment with the first-round pick is over and decide to go with the veteran and the team improves overnight. Hmmmm, sounds familiar. If Cedric doesn't step it up, he's gonna be standing next to the other guy that had this happen to him. And stop running with your shoelaces tied together, this will add at least 2 yards to your yards/carry avg.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:49 am
Posts: 141
Location: Rock Island, IL
Was I the only one who noticed that Benson was not on the field for one snap of the Bears' 97-yard game-winning touchdown drive?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "Franchise Back" when he is on the sidelines watching at the most critical time in the game.

I can guarantee that Thomas Jones would have been out there yesterday. And while I agree with Nas, Benson looked better yesterday, he's still not the best back on the team and should still be coming off of the bench to spell the starter. He was a beast off the bench last season, he ran so hard, so motivated. You just don't see that from him anymore. Cedric Benson 2006 would have complained about not being on the field for the game winning drive. I get the feeling that Ced didn't even blink when he was told or found out that he would be watching instead of playing.

That is why Ced Benson has been a steaming pile of shit this year. He just doesn't care anymore. He appears to be a guy whose personal glory is more important than his team winning games. If winning was most important he would have gotten along with Thomas Jones instead of maintaining bad blood with him that led to the Bears having to make a decision that ultimately affected the team.

If I'm the Bears, I go after Michael Turner, who will be the best available back on the free agent market and cut ties with Benson. He's just not motivated. Maybe starting Adrian Peterson and leaving him on the bench would be the kick in the ass that he needs to get it together mentally (because I think we can all agree that he has shown he can do it physically), but I doubt it.

Hopefully Lovie will give it a try.

_________________
-Larry D.

Host of Chicago Bears Review
http://chicagobearsreview.mypodcast.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:32 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
Underground Dyer wrote:
Was I the only one who noticed that Benson was not on the field for one snap of the Bears' 97-yard game-winning touchdown drive?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "Franchise Back" when he is on the sidelines watching at the most critical time in the game.


That doesn't bother me because they were in a no huddle, obvious passing situation, and that's not his role on the Bears. What bothers me is that he sucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:42 am
Posts: 327
Location: Eufaula
Maybe the Bears should get off the bus passing instead of trying to do something they are not very good at!
DAMN!
They are not very good at passing in the first 3 quarters!

_________________
Winning covers a multitude of sins


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 2974
Location: who wants to know?
JROCK1956 wrote:
They are not very good at passing in the first 3 quarters!


If you mean that the Bears are better passing the ball in the fourth as opposed to the first three quarters? I don't think so. Griese's completion percentage for the first 3 quarters of the 4 games that he has played is 63%. Guess what his completion percentage for the 4th quarter of the 4 games he's played...that's right, 63%. It seems that the Bears are better at passing in the fourth because by then their either losing or fighting for the lead and they pretty much abandon the run and then the passing game does exactly as before except now, with more pass plays called, the offense looks totally better. The lesson to be learned here...fuck running the ball first! We don't have the line for it and we don't have the back(s) for it. Come out throwing to set up the run. I'm certainly not comparing Griese to the best in the game, but Brady is constantly dinkin and dunkin the whole way down the field at the beginning of every game. This sets up the run and the long pass. If you're gonna copy someone, copy the best. The end numbers will still be the same except you may go into halftime with about 25 pass attempts but you'll finish the game with about 35-37.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
BD wrote:
Underground Dyer wrote:
Was I the only one who noticed that Benson was not on the field for one snap of the Bears' 97-yard game-winning touchdown drive?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "Franchise Back" when he is on the sidelines watching at the most critical time in the game.


That doesn't bother me because they were in a no huddle, obvious passing situation, and that's not his role on the Bears. What bothers me is that he sucks.


True but you usually want your "Franchise Back" to be able to provide something in the pass blocking and pass catching areas, two things Benson is very bad at.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Elgin Mental Health Institute
My Dear Internet friends,
Cedric Benson is the type of running back that is best suited to a team that has a front line that will clear lanes between the tackles. This team, last year and this, has shown that they do not have the talent level necessary to open up the tackles, so they must run sweeps and get the entire offensive line moving in the same direction. Benson is not the type of back that has the speed necessary to get around these corners. He should rather be pushing his way up the middle, but is getting no holes at all to run thru. This makes it look like he cannot move the pile, however, there should be no pile to move.
The Bears made a fundamental mistake by losing their speedier back given this particular O-Line. It was a strategic error, not a physical issue with Benson. Also, you fine internet people have never met the man, so for the sake of argument, let us withhold any questions of his motivation, because otherwise would be to post speculation, which, as Evil J.A.C.K. has had benefit him many times, is inadmissable.
So, I believe the trouble is not Benson, but rather the team built around him which is, actually, also not the problem.
Your Dear Friend,
Evil J.A.C.K.

_________________
My Mother was a witch...she was burned alive
Thankless little bitch, for the tears I cried
Take her down now, don't wanna see her face.
All blistered and burnt, can't hide my disgrace.
Am I evil? Yes. I am.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:07 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
FavreFan wrote:
BD wrote:
Underground Dyer wrote:
Was I the only one who noticed that Benson was not on the field for one snap of the Bears' 97-yard game-winning touchdown drive?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "Franchise Back" when he is on the sidelines watching at the most critical time in the game.


That doesn't bother me because they were in a no huddle, obvious passing situation, and that's not his role on the Bears. What bothers me is that he sucks.


True but you usually want your "Franchise Back" to be able to provide something in the pass blocking and pass catching areas, two things Benson is very bad at.


I'll take him averaging 4.0 per carry, but I won't hold not having him in the game in the final 2 minutes against him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82221
Evil J.A.C.K. wrote:
let us withhold any questions of his motivation, because otherwise would be to post speculation, which, as Evil J.A.C.K. has had benefit him many times, is inadmissable.
.


but we are all experts.

Given your analysis, I would think Garret Wolfe would be a natural fit for this team, yet we never see him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 2974
Location: who wants to know?
Evil J.A.C.K. wrote:
My Dear Internet friends,
Cedric Benson is the type of running back that is best suited to a team that has a front line that will clear lanes between the tackles. This team, last year and this, has shown that they do not have the talent level necessary to open up the tackles, so they must run sweeps and get the entire offensive line moving in the same direction. Benson is not the type of back that has the speed necessary to get around these corners. He should rather be pushing his way up the middle, but is getting no holes at all to run thru. This makes it look like he cannot move the pile, however, there should be no pile to move.
The Bears made a fundamental mistake by losing their speedier back given this particular O-Line. It was a strategic error, not a physical issue with Benson. Also, you fine internet people have never met the man, so for the sake of argument, let us withhold any questions of his motivation, because otherwise would be to post speculation, which, as Evil J.A.C.K. has had benefit him many times, is inadmissable.
So, I believe the trouble is not Benson, but rather the team built around him which is, actually, also not the problem.
Your Dear Friend,
Evil J.A.C.K.


You are C.O.R.R.E.C.T. at least in my opinion you are. I don't want to put words in your mouth...or anything else for that matter, but it seems like you're saying that Benson simply doesn't fit into this team's offensive style of running. Ron Turner actually said this, although they (he and Angelo) had previously said that he DOES fit into the team's offensive style of running. In retrospect, the fact that Benson showed the flashes he did last year can be attributed to the purpose of the drives that he was on the field for (for the most part). Which were "the Bears are ahead and we're gonna eat the clock" and the offensive line played with only one thing to focus on for every play.
However, I wouldn't necessarily say that Thomas Jones was speedier, but he had the ability to cut back which is becoming more and more apparent each week to be a key to running behind this line....not to mention he played on passing downs too.
I'm still a couple more unspectacular games from assigning him "bust" status, but based on his effort level displayed this year and last year (can't play with any type of injury, immediately hits the ground when touched or sometimes i don't know why he's falling, runs out of bounds when he could have gain 3-4 more yards by simply taking 2 steps left instead of right or vice versa but he doesn't wanna be hit by a DB, no pass-blocking...this can only be measured by effort), and regardless of "motivation" because motivation doesn't apply to somebody with his level of indifference to everything, I think we'll see a 50-50 split in the carries with him and AP by game 12 if the Bears decide that Benson's not the guy....even more likely if they're in the playoff hunt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:25 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
In regards to some of David Haugh's recent columns about the offense....

David Haugh is either an idiot or a mouth piece for the team, because I don't think he's seeing the same game I am. I'm as pro-Bears as anyone, but this garbage he's saying is insane.

The Bears offense was only on the field for 6 plays in the first quarter because they were three and out twice, allowing the Eagles to dominate time of possession. That's a reason to change, not a valid excuse.

Adrian Peterson is better suited as a change-of-pace back? Why? Because he's small? Well he's not small. And he's not particularly amazing catching passes out of the backfield. He actually has better vision, better moves, and appears to be a pinch faster than Benson, with better hands. He's the better all around back and team's don't have to have third down backs, Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:27 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
I've heard some suggest today that the Bears should stick with Benson now that their playoff hopes are non-existant. Should they stay with him even though he's been completely unproductive to ensure that they know what they have in him OR do they hold Benson accountable, and turn the job over to Peterson ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:35 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:17 am
Posts: 3073
Location: Chicago-West Side
I don't see them getting much more out of him than what they have already seen and I'd like to see what Peterson can do carrying the load for a few games. Really, what do you have to lose right now? Plus I'd LOVE to see him succeed to stick it to all the talking heads who constantly declare that he CAN'T POSSIBLY be a load back in this league.

Bernstein, Holmes, Hub, etc have all preached this but have NEVER actually given a decent reason why they think that. They just make the statement in a smug, condescending manner. Yet most times he has a chance to make something happen he does it well and it pisses me off that so many seem to laugh at the idea of him being a load back, even the idea of it. But they keep preaching to give Benson the ball 30 times a game when all he's done is suck ass this year. What gives?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: enigma, FrankDrebin, NME, The Doctor Of Style, USA and 21 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group