Maybe TT was so disappointed with the passing game last night that he decided to go with 4 RBs and 3 or 4 WRs
I definitely think they will stick with 5 WR and Quarless will most likely miss 6 weeks on the PUP list so there could definitely be an opening for a 4th RB. Wouldn't be the first time they have kept 5 RB/FB. A couple years ago they had 3 FB and 2 RB. 4 RB and 1 FB wouldn't be out of the norm.
Starks has to get motivated and take precedence or he will end up like cousin Jonny Flynn.
We talked about the RB position being scarily thin a couple months ago, and everyone was citing Thompson's lack of movement on the position in FA as a reason to not be concerned. Why then would this move be considered no big deal, just depth? Just a guy to push Starks? I don't believe that, especially with Thompson's MO. He wouldn't make this move if he thought the starter was on the roster. It seems obvious that his evaluation (with McCarthy) was that they may need to move on, and to get a player they know is of that caliber before he goes somewhere else (like, say, San Diego who just lost their RB).
I think it's a 100% indictment of Starks. They're not going to waste half a season finding out the guy just isn't a player, then have scraps to choose from at that point. Starks had a nice little run in the playoffs, but he ws just another Basil Mitchell or Whisper Goodman or Demond Parker. Seemed like he had a shot, but it just never materialized.
Benson is still a pretty good player and has a chance to really produce on this team and in this offense. Hopefully he'll stay out of trouble.
I think it's a 100% indictment of Starks. They're not going to waste half a season finding out the guy just isn't a player, then have scraps to choose from at that point. Starks had a nice little run in the playoffs, but he ws just another Basil Mitchell or Whisper Goodman or Demond Parker. Seemed like he had a shot, but it just never materialized.
Benson is still a pretty good player and has a chance to really produce on this team and in this offense. Hopefully he'll stay out of trouble.
Other than short yardage or trying to kill the clock at the end of the game, I just don't see what Benson does for them. Really would be a strange signing in almost every way.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
We talked about the RB position being scarily thin a couple months ago, and everyone was citing Thompson's lack of movement on the position in FA as a reason to not be concerned. Why then would this move be considered no big deal, just depth?
Its possible GB was looking at Benson for awhile now; we fans only became aware of it recently. Its possible the front office and coaches wanted to wait and see how Starks performed in TC and a game before being certain of their assessment
its pure speculation on my part, but after seeing Rodgers glare at Starks on more than one occasion - it wouldn't surprise me if Starks' inability to master the playbook played a role in this decision. That and the dropped and fumbled balls means they don't trust him.
So much of McCarthy's offense relies on play-action, you have to think they need a real threat to run the ball at some point. They really haven't needed it the last 2 seasons, but it's obvious they want to go in another direction.
I sure hope he does have something left in the tank. If he's out of shape, or noticably slower, they may resurrect Kuhn's RB career again...
I sure hope he does have something left in the tank. If he's out of shape, or noticably slower, they may resurrect Kuhn's RB career again...
quote:Its possible GB was looking at Benson for awhile now; we fans only became aware of it recently. Its possible the front office and coaches wanted to wait and see how Starks performed in TC and a game before being certain of their assessment
That seems obvious, doesn't it? Hence the reason they made the move now. Let's hope it is the answer. If he can run for 1000 yards on the Bengals with a rookie QB and a rebuilding offense, he could be pretty good in GB. And he could be a nice mudder come January...
quote:Originally posted by 18c3v:
Other than short yardage or trying to kill the clock at the end of the game, I just don't see what Benson does for them. Really would be a strange signing in almost every way.
Yeah, three straight 1000 yard seasons with a really bad team and he's 29 years old. What a strange signing.
Once he got his a$$ out of sh#tcago, he's been pretty good. Nothing to lose, sign him up. After the way Starks has performed over the last year, I have no problem with this, especially since Green is highly unproven and hurt.
Starks, ever the banjo-legged forlorn hope, has had what? A single decent four-game stretch two years ago?
The rest of the time, Rodgers swats him around in frustration, while we wait for him to get injured again.
Hell yeah Ted.
The rest of the time, Rodgers swats him around in frustration, while we wait for him to get injured again.
Hell yeah Ted.
Sadly, it beats the hell out of Mike Neal's one good game...
I don't believe Starks demeanor after the dropped pass and fumble set too well either.Look upset even if it is pre-season. I believe Benson is a motivational kick in the rear but I also would not be surprised to see him make the roster.
Benson will start 14-16 games this year. Starks is a 6th round pick who acted like an entitled first rounder. His failure to pick up blitzes will be his ultimate demise, although the fact he no longer runs into the line hard and has developed a problem catching passes and holding on to the ball is problematic as well. Benson is not an amazing back, does little as a receiver, and is also a fumbler, but has been durable, tough between the tackles, and can pick up blitzers. Alex Green and Brandon Saine could fill out our RBs if the staff doesn't want to retain Starks. This is not a wake-up call, it is a WTFU or leave the roster entirely call.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
If he can hold onto the ball.
What the Green Bay Packers ask of their RB's (in no particular order):
1. Don't put the ball on the ground.
2. Catch the ball.
3. Pass protect (protect the franchise).
4. Get the four yards that are there when given the opportunity.
Starks failed to accomplish all of the above against San Diego, and he's had issues in pass protection dating all the way back to his rookie year. He actually looks to have regressed as a receiver.
It's his 3rd year now, he has/had a golden opportunity to be the primary back in one of the most prolific offenses in the NFL led by the league's best player, and not too many 6th round draft choices are ever even afforded an opportunity (there are exceptions, of course) nearly as rich as the one he is grave danger of pissing away. If lack of focus is still an issue at this point, that may not be correctable (or at least correctable enough).
And I haven't even mentioned "availability", either.
I'll admit to being mildly surprised it was Benson of the available backs on the market given his off-field history, but we'll just have see how it plays itself out. I'm sure there was a reason he was chosen over Grant, but I don't expect TT to be any more forthcoming about the situation than he usually is. Which is fine with me.
Absolutely a personnel boot in the hindquarters to an entire positional group if I've ever seen one.
The Packers just don't have a talented backfield, period. It's all about results, and unfortunately I get the impression the ooaches and TT might have fallen out of favor with Starks (for whatever reason). The bottom line is that outside of the 2010 season and playoffs he's done nothing since. Not sure if it's laziness or he just exceeded expectations in 2010, but that game last week was atrocious.
A little competition isn't a bad thing and while Bencons has been a turd in the past he's been a productive RB. Give him a shot.
A little competition isn't a bad thing and while Bencons has been a turd in the past he's been a productive RB. Give him a shot.
Boris wrote:
Does this include John Kuuuuuuuuhn?
quote:Maybe Ted plans on keeping 4 RB's.
Does this include John Kuuuuuuuuhn?
Would figure that the season I claim them to be fine at RB, they go and do this. Maybe I am as stupid as some think.
Nah...
I'm going with TT learned a lesson in 2010 and decided the team shouldn't have to scrape thru the majority of a season with no talent or playmakers at that position.
My prediction? Benson doesn't make the opening day roster.
Nah...
I'm going with TT learned a lesson in 2010 and decided the team shouldn't have to scrape thru the majority of a season with no talent or playmakers at that position.
My prediction? Benson doesn't make the opening day roster.
Maybe it is just economics. Benson will be signed for the vet minimum. Maybe Grant wants more.
I'll take a wait and see approach, but I'm not thrilled with Benson becoming a Packer. I never really liked him much as a player, and his off the field stuff is less than assuring as well. He has been rather productive in Cincinnati these past few seasons, though. Honestly, I think Grant would have been the better choice.
As always, I'll defer to the personnel staff here, as they seem to kind of know what they're doing more often than not.
As always, I'll defer to the personnel staff here, as they seem to kind of know what they're doing more often than not.
When our premier running back leaves the ball on the ground in a routine carry, even I'll have to agree with the stopgap measure. Starks is finished in Green Bay.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
What the Green Bay Packers ask of their RB's (in no particular order):
1. Don't put the ball on the ground.
2. Catch the ball.
3. Pass protect (protect the franchise).
4. Get the four yards that are there when given the opportunity.
Now lets put Ced under the microscope:
1. 12 fumbles over the last 2 years? OUCH!
2. Ced has crappy hands.
3. Not sure how good he is.
4. Ced averages about 3.8 yards per carry.
I don't get this move.
Grant's play last season did very little to push Starks. He had some good runs late but overall was average. Been there, done that.
Cedric's best quality is his ability to handle a major load. In this offense?
That sounds absurd to me. If I was trying to make a football team I might feel that way but there's no way in hell I'd admit to it. Guess they need someone to pick up snaps with Bennett hurt and trying not to overwork Green.quote:Tyler admitted after the game to being a little tired, because he hadn’t normally been getting that many snaps in practice. His 13 rushes and three receptions might have equaled if not surpassed his total touches through two weeks of training camp. continue
quote:
The article focuses in on what happened 4 years ago. But what about now? Grant had a chance to be signed by the Detroit Lions. But he wasn't. The one reason given was that he wanted to much money. If that is the case, that would be enough to keep TT from signing him. That and the critical fumble he had last year in the playoff game. I know that a lot more happened in that game, but the Pack were moving and then that happened. For some reason that sticks out to me anyway. Maybe in TT's mind, it helped solidify Grant's worth.
One thing about TT is that he is not usually held hostage by any other player. There are options and Benson is one of them.
BTW, I agree with the comments about Starks needing a kick in the back side. McCarthy's comments about Starks two years ago indicated that he needed to pick it up in practice to get on the field is an indication of of his attitude.
quote:Originally posted by heyward:quote:
Silly.
It is silly.
The reason Grant didn't get signed? He can't play at a high level anymore. He lost his burst. The Packers have moved on. Nothing more, nothing less.
I thank Ryan Grant for his contribution to the Green Bay Packers. Thank you sir.
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:
Now lets put Ced under the microscope:
1. 12 fumbles over the last 2 years? OUCH!
2. Ced has crappy hands.
3. Not sure how good he is.
4. Ced averages about 3.8 yards per carry.
I don't get this move.
1. A legitimate concern.
2. We're about to find out.
3. We're about to find out about that, too.
4. Close enough to 4. As long as we have a balance of rushing attempts it has shown it can be enough with our passing game. Including play action.
Q: Name a former Packer that has proven he can do three out of the four requirements, and has a career YPC nearly identical to Benson's (3.7)?
A: Brandon Jackson
Is the Benson signing official? I've only seen reports that he's in GB discussing a contract.
Going to give them some credit, cheeseheadtv has a decent breakdown of Benson's positive and negatives:
quote:
Here’s a quick breakdown of those positives and negatives:
Positives
Benson has produced. Three-straight 1,000-yard seasons doesn’t just happen by accident, especially in today’s shootout-style NFL game. And after a difficult start to his professional career, Benson turned himself into a No. 1 back. That counts for something.
He’s stayed healthy. Over the last two seasons, Benson has missed just one game. James Starks and Alex Green—the Packers 1-2 at running back before the signing—obviously can’t say the same.
Perfect fit for the four-minute offense. The Packers’ offense struggled to put the lid on close games last season, mostly due to their inability to run the football in the four-minute situations. Benson brings a tough, inside runner who can pick up the gritty yards late to close out games.
Benson can pass protect. According to Pro Football Focus, Benson allowed just one sack, one quarterback hit and two hurries in 74 pass-blocking snaps last season. He’s widely considered one of the best blocking backs. In the Packers offense, pass-protecting skills from a running back are heavily weighed.
Maybe this lights a fire under James Starks. While I thought he was a different runner to start 2011, he’s been a dud so far to start 2012. Thursday’s debacle in San Diego was unacceptable, as Starks dropped an easy catch and then fumbled an exchange with Aaron Rodgers. One could argue he’s regressed in his third NFL season.
Finally brings some experience. Outside of Starks, the Packers running backs have a combined 21 NFL carries. Without Benson, the Packers backfield likely ranks as the most inexperienced in football. Benson brings seven years and 1,529 career carries.
Negatives
Benson is 29, and will be 30 in October. There’s a lot of wear on his tires, and it’s no secret why he was still without a team mid-way through August.
He’s been in trouble with the law. The game he missed in 2011 was due to a suspension that resulted from two separate assault arrests, and the Bears released him in 2008 after two drunken driving incidents.
No running back has fumbled more over the last two seasons. After coughing it up seven times in 2010, Benson put the ball on the ground five more times last season. Ball security is important to Packers coach Mike McCarthy, so we’ll see if there’s any correction there.
Far from the most efficient running back. Benson’s career rushing average is just 3.8, and two of the three 1,000-yard seasons came with averages under 4.0. He needs a lot of touches to be produtive.
Not the greatest receiver out of the backfield. Benson has 106 career catches, but he’s not going to be an upgrade as a pass-catching running back.
Benson gets far too much credit for being a tackle-breaking back. Check out Pro Football Focus’ elusiveness rating from 2011 HERE. Benson ranks near the bottom, while Starks is fourth best. Interesting.
If Benson sticks, he’ll steal reps and snaps from younger players like Green and Saine. Eventually, those guys need looks. And any chance of Marc Tyler making the 53-man roster probably just went up in smoke.
Good, net take on the whole matter:
"The signing of Cedric Benson begs two questions. The first is why are the Packers interested in adding a 29-year-old running back? The second is why isn’t that 29-year-old running back named Ryan Grant. The answers to both questions are actually pretty easy. General manager Ted Thompson is adding a veteran running back because projected starter James Starks is having a disappointing summer. And he chose Benson over Grant because the former Bengal has been the better player for the past few seasons."
http://packerupdate.net/?p=21822
"The signing of Cedric Benson begs two questions. The first is why are the Packers interested in adding a 29-year-old running back? The second is why isn’t that 29-year-old running back named Ryan Grant. The answers to both questions are actually pretty easy. General manager Ted Thompson is adding a veteran running back because projected starter James Starks is having a disappointing summer. And he chose Benson over Grant because the former Bengal has been the better player for the past few seasons."
http://packerupdate.net/?p=21822
quote:Benson can pass protect. According to Pro Football Focus, Benson allowed just one sack, one quarterback hit and two hurries in 74 pass-blocking snaps last season. He’s widely considered one of the best blocking backs. In the Packers offense, pass-protecting skills from a running back are heavily weighed.
OK, now I get it!!!!
Just tell Cedric to pretend he's protecting this.
Cedric Bongson?
If he's a great blocking back for the Franchise, I'm on board.
MasTTermind at work.
If he's a great blocking back for the Franchise, I'm on board.
MasTTermind at work.
Benson is better than Ryan Grant. Grant missed holes and left yards constantly.....no burst. He was extremely reliable in pass pro and holding on to the ball though, something CB will need to prove he can do.
Low risk signing, if he sucks cut him.
Low risk signing, if he sucks cut him.