Chris Mortensen reports:
@mortreport
Cedric Benson is in Green Bay, expected to sign with #Packers, per sources
Apparently TT was thoroughly unimpressed with Starks.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Great move. Starks needs someone to push his ass.
http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/2005
If it ends up happening, it will just be another chapter in the saga of:
The Top Ten Draft picks of 2005...
Look at how many of these guys are on their 2nd or 3rd team...
Alex D. Smith.... 3 Head coaches
Ronnie Brown.... .3 teams
Braylon Edwards..... 3 teams
Cedric Benson....3 teams
Cadillac Williams....2 teams
Pacman Jones..... 2-3 teams
Troy Williamson....tainted goods
Antrel Rolle....2 teams
Carlos Rogers....2 teams
Mike Williams.....3 teams
If it ends up happening, it will just be another chapter in the saga of:
The Top Ten Draft picks of 2005...
Look at how many of these guys are on their 2nd or 3rd team...
Alex D. Smith.... 3 Head coaches
Ronnie Brown.... .3 teams
Braylon Edwards..... 3 teams
Cedric Benson....3 teams
Cadillac Williams....2 teams
Pacman Jones..... 2-3 teams
Troy Williamson....tainted goods
Antrel Rolle....2 teams
Carlos Rogers....2 teams
Mike Williams.....3 teams
Saine, Green, and Benson (assuming he passes physical and is in decent shape).
Where would that leave Starks?
Has MM seen enough?
Where would that leave Starks?
Has MM seen enough?
Interesting that they did this and not just bring Grant back. This at least solidifies the RB position with a sure option. Starks is still struggling with blitz pickup. Green is recovering from a torn ACL so they probably want to take it easy with his workload and Saine is simply too green still to heavily rely upon.
3 years ago, Benson looked really good. I wonder if that performance he had against the Pack in '09 was in the back of TT's mind when they signed him. He was a 1000 yard rusher last year, so he may have something left in the tank.
quote:
Innnteresting: Packers and Cedric Benson
August, 10, 2012
Aug 106:52PM ETBy Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com
ESPN's Chris Mortensen blew me away Friday afternoon with his report that free-agent running back Cedric Benson is in Green Bay and preparing to sign a contract with the Green Bay Packers. I don't necessarily stand in judgment against it, I'm just totally surprised. A few thoughts on this deal, assuming it occurs:
1.General manager Ted Thompson stepped out of his comfort zone a couple times this offseason to sign veteran free agents, in each case for a specific reason. He didn't think his team could go with an untested player at center, so he signed Jeff Saturday. And he thought the Packers needed multiple infusions of juice at defensive line, leading to the acquisitions of Anthony Hargrove, Daniel Muir and Phillip Merling. So he must have thought his backfield was in worse shape than it appeared to pursue Benson.
2.Cedric Benson has rushed for at least 1,000 yards for the Bengals in each of the past three seasons.The Packers clearly committed to James Starks as their lead back in the offseason, and while he struggled in Thursday night's preseason opener, that would be an awfully quick hook on that commitment. Starks is still just 26 and the Packers are usually pretty patient with their player development.
3.The Packers have downplayed the significance of experience and veteran depth in the backfield since Ryan Grant injured his ankle in Week 1 of the 2010 season. Since then, they have passed up numerous opportunities to add veterans with cache, including then-Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch, and instead remained committed to their internal depth. The timing of this move is a legitimate question. Why now?
4.With all of that said, the Packers had a need for some experience in the backfield. At this point, Alex Green and Brandon Saine, with a combined 21 NFL carries, were Starks' backups. But the Packers had not acted on that need for so long that most of us had given up on pushing it.
5.I reached out to Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc., who liked the deal from a pure football perspective. Williamson doesn't think Benson will help the Packers in their passing game, but it's worth noting he produced more than 1,000 rushing yards for the Cincinnati Bengals in each of the past three seasons. "Benson is a better runner still than anyone the Packers have right now," Williamson said. "He can get what is blocked still -- and a bit more. And he should be a decent inside zone runner, especially against unstacked boxes." In other words, Benson should be able to capitalize more than Starks on defenses situated to play the run.
6.Benson is 29 and has a long history of legal problems. We all know the Chicago Bears released him in 2008 as a result. He was suspended one game last season after a pair of misdemeanor assault arrests. That's only relevant to the Packers in that another incident would probably lead to a significantly longer suspension, per the NFL's policy against repeat offenses.
7.Overall, this move is notable mostly for what it reveals about the Packers' internal view of their backfield. To me, you don't go through the trouble of signing Cedric Benson just for a look-see. You bring him in because you think you need him. I think a reasonable argument could be made that the Packers needed more juice in their backfield. I'm just surprised they acted on it when they did.
Packer Update:
quote:"No question the potential signing of Benson is an indictment of James Starks. The third-year RB has struggled all summer with inconsistency."
quote:Originally posted by Iowacheese:
packer people
Maybe he's coming in to be captain of the ship?
The biggest concern is that Benson will fumble now and then. He's strong and a good pure runner, but ball security is not his strength (like the fumble in the Super Bowl).
quote:Originally posted by packerboi:
Saine, Green, and Benson (assuming he passes physical and is in decent shape).
Where would that leave Starks?
Has MM seen enough?
I'm going with yes.
wrong statequote:Originally posted by Orlando Wolf:quote:Originally posted by Iowacheese:
packer people
Maybe he's coming in to be captain of the ship?
I blame it on practice....practice
Green Bay — James Starks is no Allen Iverson. But when it comes to practice, something has been missing.
Therefore, so has his playing time.
Starks, a rookie running back for the Green Bay Packers, had a memorable season-debut against San Francisco on Dec. 5. Since then, Starks has faded from the picture and been inactive the past two games.
Turns out, it's largely because Green Bay's coaching staff doesn't like Starks' practice habits.
"I just haven't been practicing well," said Starks, a sixth-round draft pick from Buffalo. "It's something I've just got to get used to.
Green Bay — James Starks is no Allen Iverson. But when it comes to practice, something has been missing.
Therefore, so has his playing time.
Starks, a rookie running back for the Green Bay Packers, had a memorable season-debut against San Francisco on Dec. 5. Since then, Starks has faded from the picture and been inactive the past two games.
Turns out, it's largely because Green Bay's coaching staff doesn't like Starks' practice habits.
"I just haven't been practicing well," said Starks, a sixth-round draft pick from Buffalo. "It's something I've just got to get used to.
Stuff like this reminds me how the NFL is a tough business. Ryan Grant is a hell of a man who gave his all for the team and was pretty damn good. But if these reports are accurate the Packers decide to bring in Benson instead.
Can he pass block?
Can he pass block?
Accountability and Availability
- multiple mental errors and multiple injuries makes Starks 0-2 on the Pillars of Packerdom...
- multiple mental errors and multiple injuries makes Starks 0-2 on the Pillars of Packerdom...
quote:Originally posted by cuqui:
Can he pass block?
From link above:
quote:I reached out to Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc., who liked the deal from a pure football perspective. Williamson doesn't think Benson will help the Packers in their passing game, but it's worth noting he produced more than 1,000 rushing yards for the Cincinnati Bengals in each of the past three seasons. "Benson is a better runner still than anyone the Packers have right now," Williamson said. "He can get what is blocked still -- and a bit more. And he should be a decent inside zone runner, especially against unstacked boxes." In other words, Benson should be able to capitalize more than Starks on defenses situated to play the run.
Biggest concern wouldn't be his blocking. It's his fumbling.
19 in 5 years, 12 of them in the last 2.
I think Ryan Grant in that same period has something like 4.
Maybe they're looking at him to replace Desmond Bishop? 
What happened to James Starks? I swear I read on some forum last year that he was better than Matt Forte. There was even a whole thread mocking the Bears for not drafting him. Give me a second and I'll think of it.
I have great respect for Ted Thompson and the way he's built the Packers, but recycling a washed-up turd like Benson smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
I have great respect for Ted Thompson and the way he's built the Packers, but recycling a washed-up turd like Benson smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
If only Ted signed Beast Mode.....
Coulda had (2) superbowls
I just had to.
Coulda had (2) superbowls
I just had to.
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
What happened to James Starks? I swear I read on some forum last year that he was better than Matt Forte. There was even a whole thread mocking the Bears for not drafting him. Give me a second and I'll think of it.
I have great respect for Ted Thompson and the way he's built the Packers, but recycling a washed-up turd like Benson smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
You read incorrectly. We said Jay Cutler was better than Fatt Contract Forte.
Go back to your 8-8 seasons and 30 years without a decent quarterback. See you next offseason.
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
recycling awashed-updual personality turd likeBensonMarshall smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
FTFY
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
I have great respect for Ted Thompson and the way he's built the Packers, but recycling a washed-up turd like Benson smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
I don't blame you for bagging on Benson, but for whatever reason, he was a couple notches better with the Bengals than he ever was for the Bears. Hopefully the Pack gets the 2009 Bengals version and not the version the Bears gave up on.
Considering we haven't had a 1,000 yard receiver since the Marty Booker years, I wouldn't argue with that one bit, Chilli.
B-N-D
B-N-D
This should finally solve our shortage of 'Respect' yards.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orlando Wolf:
Loved this episode of Golden Girls!
[/
QUOTE]
Damn Beef, Cedric is tapping our girls.
Loved this episode of Golden Girls!
[/QUOTE]
Damn Beef, Cedric is tapping our girls.
Starks must have been a special kind of bad in camp (leading to last night) for GB to give him the hook like this.
Starter to likely gone in a month.
Starter to likely gone in a month.
I actually think Benson still has some gas left in the tank. He ran pretty effectively last year, and at the very least he'll play with a chip on his shoulder against the Bears--he's been indignant ever since we had the gall to cut him after his third arrest.
Still, it's suspect for a Super Bowl contending team with a tight locker room to bring in a guy whose rap-sheet is lengthy even by Bengal standards.
B-N-D
Still, it's suspect for a Super Bowl contending team with a tight locker room to bring in a guy whose rap-sheet is lengthy even by Bengal standards.
B-N-D
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
Still, it's suspect for a Super Bowl contending team with a tight locker room to bring in a guy whose rap-sheet is lengthy even by Bengal standards.
B-N-D
Wait, are we talking about Benson or Marshall now?
Maybe Ted plans on keeping 4 RB's.
I'm not certain Starks is automatically gone. I can't see them releasing Starks without compensation either. Maybe Ted has some trade language worked out with an AFC team
I'm not certain Starks is automatically gone. I can't see them releasing Starks without compensation either. Maybe Ted has some trade language worked out with an AFC team
I'll admit Starks has struggled and bringing in Benson instead of Ryan grant is puzzling, but nobody said Jennings or Nelson were good as gone when we signed Andy Brewer.
GB certainly doesn't need Benson because they need an 1,100 yard back. They either felt Starks total lack of focus and effort in camp was a potential season long liability or they want to send an early message.
I think the Packers could have waited a week to take another look at Starks and Tyler before pulling the trigger.
I just can't get passed how bad Starks screwed this (and himself) up in such a short time.
I think the Packers could have waited a week to take another look at Starks and Tyler before pulling the trigger.
I just can't get passed how bad Starks screwed this (and himself) up in such a short time.
This is very surprising, but then again Starks and Green looked horrid last night.
Need someone who is remotely capable of breaking a tackle or falling fwd for more than 3 inches without losing the ball.
Makes the pass on Lynch a little more puzzling in retrospect
Need someone who is remotely capable of breaking a tackle or falling fwd for more than 3 inches without losing the ball.
Makes the pass on Lynch a little more puzzling in retrospect
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this one. I wonder if they checked with Grant and the money couldn't be worked out. Not the kind of guy they usually bring in. There's nothing worse than a fumbler.
quote:Originally posted by BearNDesert:
but recycling a washed-up turd like Benson smacks of desperation.
B-N-D
Yes and no. There were reports a month back that GB was kicking the tires on him, so at least on the timing front its not a "desperate" decision.
http://timesfour.com/eve/forum...854025128#2854025128
it costs nothing to bring him in and unless he sticks around he won't count vs the cap.
That said, I'm guessing they must have a more serious interest... to risk bringing something as vile as an ex-bear into Green Bay.
Andrew Brandt sees it the way you described, Satori.
All this and giving Starks a kick in the ass, too.
quote:@adbrandt: I see Packers signing Cedric Benson like Seahawks signing TO. No risk contract, extended tryout, make a decision at cut-down.
All this and giving Starks a kick in the ass, too.
Starks just doesn't seem find the holes like he was in the playoffs of '10. He's not running with the same violence and he's not moving forward after contact. OLine can't be the excuse like it was in the past with Colledge and Clifton, we have some strong run blockers on the line with plenty of size and attitude. I wonder if all of Starks injuries have him hitting the holes a little more cautious and not with the reckless abandon he showed in the past?
I wonder if there was some kind of setback with Green and his injury? Maybe he's the one who isn't playing up to their expectations?
This is an out of character move from Thompson, but he's earned the benefit of the doubt in my opinion. If he thinks Benson has enough in the tank to be a positive asset then I have no reason to think otherwise. 3000+ yards in the last 3 seasons tells me he still has something left. Thompson isn't known for making knee jerk moves.
I wonder if there was some kind of setback with Green and his injury? Maybe he's the one who isn't playing up to their expectations?
This is an out of character move from Thompson, but he's earned the benefit of the doubt in my opinion. If he thinks Benson has enough in the tank to be a positive asset then I have no reason to think otherwise. 3000+ yards in the last 3 seasons tells me he still has something left. Thompson isn't known for making knee jerk moves.