I really wouldn't be surprised if Benson didn't even make the team. IMHO this is solely being done to light a fire under Starks' ass, and if Starks doesn't wake up then Benson will stick and Starks will be gone.
A rb that can't get yards behind this line and passing game is inept.
Interesting TT didn't wait until cutdowns to pick up a younger, more-upside guy, one they could even stash on the PS for a year. Bringing in Ced doesn't make sense other than asking Ced to put his cleats up Starks' arse. Hopefully something works; Starks has some ability, but the world is full of people with ability who are sitting on the sidelines because they didn't work hard enough. I can still see TT picking up a young PS guy on cutdowns.
quote:Interesting TT didn't wait until cutdowns to pick up a younger, more-upside guy, one they could even stash on the PS for a year. Bringing in Ced doesn't make sense other than asking Ced to put his cleats up Starks' arse.
I disagree.
First, if you wait until cutdowns, what kind of player are youi going to get? It seems unlikely you'll get more than scraps, realistically. And if the performance of the RBs resembles what we saw on Thursday, getting a guy to stash on the PS sure as hell isn't going to address the running game.
Bringing in Benson makes perfect sense if your evaluation is that the 3 guys you entrusted with the RB duties this season are not good enough. It seems apparent (in my view, anyway) that Thompson is not simply trying to light a fire in a player they have penciled in as the starter. It's to get major league ability on the roster with hopes of not leaving a big fat void at the position by the time the season comes.
If Benson runs to his ability, it should work. He's not perfect, and may or may not be an answer, but it seems to me that Thompson is not going to wait for cut-downs for scrap-heap answers to a problem they perceive now.
Why does the Packers signing Benson mean Ted can get a guy after cut downs?
What the Packers want is a RB who is good at picking up Blitzs. Picking up the Blitz is a skill developed in the NFL. Guys fresh out of college are not very good at it.
That is why they are looking at Benson. If Benson can pick up Blitzs the Packers will be happy with him, if not they will cut him.
It would be interesting to find out why the Packers became so sour on Grant.
What the Packers want is a RB who is good at picking up Blitzs. Picking up the Blitz is a skill developed in the NFL. Guys fresh out of college are not very good at it.
That is why they are looking at Benson. If Benson can pick up Blitzs the Packers will be happy with him, if not they will cut him.
It would be interesting to find out why the Packers became so sour on Grant.
quote:
Interesting TT didn't wait until cutdowns to pick up a younger, more-upside guy,
The Packers already have two younger, more-upside RBs - Green and Saine. Why would you want all of your RBs to be inexperienced with one coming off a major knee injury?
Right now the Packers need a RB that will suit up every week, pick up blitzes, and rush the ball just enough to keep defenses honest (this is pass first offense). Benson has shown he can do this but he does lack in pass receiving ability.
We should consider that Green and Saine may not be "all that," or they need another year of seasoning before they are ready. If either was ready, I doubt TT goes out and gets Benson. I'm not saying it's a bad move to get Benson, just that TT is probably really dissatisfied with who's in the stable for him to go against his MO.
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
Just tell Cedric to pretend he's protecting this.
Man, bongs have come a long way since I was in college.
I'll bet it hangs from his rear view mirror.quote:Man, bongs have come a long way since I was in college.
For what it's worth, reporters on Twitter saying Starks nowhere to be seen at practice.
I'll bet Benson is over marijuana. I bet Ted thinks so, too, or this would not be happening.
And I bet Rodgers, considered the best football player in the league, while not directly involved, is playing huge in this.
It's a lie to say you don't need some semblence of a running game. The Chiefs dared the Pack to run, we didn't, and everyone saw the outcome. The Giants rushed effectively with 4, and it was one and done in the playoffs. If not an actual running game, at the very least, the Packers need play action. Rodgers knows this better than anyone.
Bottom line: Rodgers can't keep doing it on his own.
And I bet Rodgers, considered the best football player in the league, while not directly involved, is playing huge in this.
It's a lie to say you don't need some semblence of a running game. The Chiefs dared the Pack to run, we didn't, and everyone saw the outcome. The Giants rushed effectively with 4, and it was one and done in the playoffs. If not an actual running game, at the very least, the Packers need play action. Rodgers knows this better than anyone.
Bottom line: Rodgers can't keep doing it on his own.
quote:TyDunne
Heard from a source that #Packers RB James Starks was dealing with an injury. Should know more on the severity later.
quote:jasonjwilde
Mike McCarthy says James Starks has a turf toe injury.
Time to move on from Starks. Can't stay on the field, can't win with him.
We've opined before that it's crazy that players don't want to give up the weed, but for somebody to not be preparing properly, in his 3rd year no less, is just ludicrous. Also, I recall Tirico or Gruden giving him a shoutout for picking up a blitzer during the game; did he have another whiff I didn't see?
I don't think Arod would be clamoring for this player or that player, but I firmly believe if the coaches ask his opinions on somebody that can't pull their head outta their (donkey), he has no problem saying so.
I agree it seems a bit strange Grant wasn't at least considered. He very well may have been as far as we know, but there wasn't an iota of info from the media, or twitter, as far as that goes. Despite any of Grant's warts, perceived or not, he was running really well at the end of last season. IIRC, we even speculated why he wasn't getting more opportunities running because he was doing well coming in off the bench.
I'd have a hard time believing that 'personal feelings' would get in the way of a deal if they felt he was the overall best fit for the team, so that tells me they don't.
Lastly, I think a lot of us hold the opinion that Green Bay can be a good place for the ne'er-do-wells, for many reasons, so I hope that holds true in Benson's case. If TT is willing to take the chance on him, I'll sure as hell give him the benefit of the doubts.
I don't think Arod would be clamoring for this player or that player, but I firmly believe if the coaches ask his opinions on somebody that can't pull their head outta their (donkey), he has no problem saying so.
I agree it seems a bit strange Grant wasn't at least considered. He very well may have been as far as we know, but there wasn't an iota of info from the media, or twitter, as far as that goes. Despite any of Grant's warts, perceived or not, he was running really well at the end of last season. IIRC, we even speculated why he wasn't getting more opportunities running because he was doing well coming in off the bench.
I'd have a hard time believing that 'personal feelings' would get in the way of a deal if they felt he was the overall best fit for the team, so that tells me they don't.
Lastly, I think a lot of us hold the opinion that Green Bay can be a good place for the ne'er-do-wells, for many reasons, so I hope that holds true in Benson's case. If TT is willing to take the chance on him, I'll sure as hell give him the benefit of the doubts.
quote:Originally posted by GreenBayLA:
This guy? Hmmmmmmmm
I thought he had a stroke. Not the best for pass protection.
I'm not as down on Starks as some apparently are, but it doesn't matter how well the guy is playing if he can't stay on the field. He appears to be brittle and they need some dependability at the position, regardless of who it is.
Checkquote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
Has Benson even signed with GB yet?
Theodore is soooo smart. Get benson in gb for a few nights and have under cover interns follow him around at night to make sure he is keeping his nose clean. Geenyous.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
Has Benson even signed with GB yet?
Don't care. Must be outraged now!
In other news Alex Green probably has a meeting scheduled with the Packers Public Relations Department.quote:Packers shore up hole with Benson
foxsportswisconsin.com
Paul Imig on Sunday, August 12th, 2012
In an exclusive interview with FOXSportsWisconsin.com, Packers running back Alex Green confirmed Benson's imminent arrival.
"I was informed today that Cedric Benson will be coming in, so that's a great thing for us," Green told FOXSportsWisconsin.com on Sunday afternoon. "It'll help the team out. He's a great running back. That'll be a great thing for us to learn from and get a better feel for the running back position."
continue
So when the Benson deal is done, who is cut to make room? By my count they have 90. Bishop to IR?
It's done.
@TomSilverstein: Packers officially announce signing of RB Cedric Benson; placed TE Eric Lair (knee) on injured reserve, probably for injury settlement.
Schefter says its a one year deal, no other details yet.
@TomSilverstein: Packers officially announce signing of RB Cedric Benson; placed TE Eric Lair (knee) on injured reserve, probably for injury settlement.
Schefter says its a one year deal, no other details yet.
Just found it at Packers.com. Thanks MJ
quote:Originally posted by Pistol GB:
It's a lie to say you don't need some semblence of a running game. The Chiefs dared the Pack to run, we didn't, and everyone saw the outcome. The Giants rushed effectively with 4, and it was one and done in the playoffs. If not an actual running game, at the very least, the Packers need play action. Rodgers knows this better than anyone.
Bottom line: Rodgers can't keep doing it on his own.
BS (what I surmise you meant by that).
*edit*
I agree with you that there needs to be "some semblance". Which we've never been without when MM at least calls enough actual running plays to set up the play action.
1. Packers out-gained the Giants on the ground 147 to 95 in that loss.
2. The Giants finished 32nd in rushing yards last year. That's right, dead last.
3. Play action has worked extremely well for the Packers both of the last two years even with running games that posters have been continually been critical of for two seasons now (moreso in 2010...it was pretty quiet on that front during the regular season last year). Criticism that was dulled by the substandard level of play of the defense (especially compared to the two previous seasons).
Statistically-speaking, we (shareholder) ran the ball relatively less effectively last year (in terms of league ranking), and yet we still went 15-1 and set a team record for points scored. We most certainly didn't lose to the Giants because we "couldn't run the ball".
You're right to say that Rodgers "can't do it on his own". He absolutely needs support. He needs an OL and RB's that can give him adequate time (didn't happen often enough against the Giants), and not fumble. He needs receivers that don't drop passes that are right on target.
He/we as fans also would've benefited greatly from the team simply "playing to identity" (copyright MM) in that debacle last year. Even the 2011 identity which featured a flawed defense that didn't rush the passer effectively, and featured a secondary stripped of one of the league's best safeties, and two of the top three CBs struggling (one with a season-long injury and another with and unforeseen sophomore slump/regression that has carried over to this year). Fortunately, steps were taken in the draft and FA to address the shortcomings of the defense.
"Playing to identity" means not turning the ball over four times, and at least taking it away (only managed one that game)if that many yards are being given up from scrimmage. Knocking down the "hail mary" wouldn't have been a bad place to make at least one play either.
Having a running back on the field that could consistently pass block also would've prevented Rodgers' fumble, and that play in all likelihood would've been a TD with Rodgers locked in with Jennings running wide open down the sideline.
Starks @ SD: One bad pass drop, one fumble (a really bad one...due to lack of focus, not a hit), and at least one blown pass blocking assignment.
The above is why Benson is now in Green Bay. Given his history, the ball security concerns are legit. We'll all see how it pans out.
Rodgers ran for 66 yards in that debacle so much of that rushing yardage was on scrambles and not on planned runs by the Pack. The biggest problem with the run game were the turnovers by Kuhn and Grant. I'm not sure we can feel any more secure with Benson as he's been coughing it up lately too.
quote:Originally posted by fightphoe93:
Rodgers ran for 66 yards in that debacle so much of that rushing yardage was on scrambles and not on planned runs by the Pack.
Planned or not, those yards still count as I'm sure you'll agree. Rodgers ability to gash a defense with his legs as well as his arm is one of our biggest strengths.
quote:
The biggest problem with therun gameoffense were the turnovers by Kuhn and Grant.
FTFY.
The 2nd biggest problem was a huge hole @ LT, and another problem was an RB group that didn't get the job done in pass protection on at least one critical play.
quote:
I'm not sure we can feel any more secure with Benson as he's been coughing it up lately too.
I'm not either.
Jason Wilde@jasonjwilde
No commitment. RT @adbrandt Benson's contract with #Packers is one year at veteran minimum for his seven years in NFL: $825,000. No bonus.
I wonder why it took so long to hammer out the details on this contract.
No commitment. RT @adbrandt Benson's contract with #Packers is one year at veteran minimum for his seven years in NFL: $825,000. No bonus.
I wonder why it took so long to hammer out the details on this contract.
Quite Frankly ROTTT said listen you non packer people bitch....that is all we are going to offer...that is all you will get.
quote:The biggest problem with the run game were the turnovers by Kuhn and Grant. I'm not sure we can feel any more secure with Benson as he's been coughing it up lately too.
I think it was Hunt in the JSO when the Benson rumors started that mentioned something about how the Packers lacked a rushing attack that could bury teams in the 4th Q, creating the need for additional possessions. I concur with this. Hopefully Benson will help them grind out late drives to put teams away, play a little more effective keep away, and disrupt the rhythm of the opposing offenses when they're starting to string together drives. TOs are no thing to rely on for an effective defense. The O can do their part, too.
This is an SI story from 2009, when he left the bears for the bengals, courtesy of Packerpedia
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...29/benson/index.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...29/benson/index.html
Thompson was thinking only about respect. How much more respect will Benson get us versus Grant...a lot. Thompson didn't pull the trigger on Lynch and we won a SB by the skin of our teeth. He's not going to make the same mistake twice.
he doesn't catch many passes either. so i doubt he'd be in on passing downs anyway.
wouldn't be surprised if he's cut by week one.
wouldn't be surprised if he's cut by week one.