Frank... you've hit it on the head with our o-line issues. I reference that a bit in my article, but it's worth elaborating. Our run game has zone blocking principles. It is not designed to maul and get the tough yards, which is what Cedric does best really. He's not a stretch it out and find the hole kind of guy. The only mauler we have is Sitton and maybe Bulaga can also be that in his third year now. Our left side is pass-pro all the way. Because Cedric is far from a burner, any tough yards he gets will be exactly that: tough. The one aspect of the deal I love is the contract. TT took absolutely zero risk in this deal. Veterans minimum and its reduced even more if he ends up on the IR. I just don't see the "high reward" side of the zero risk/high reward argument. Hopefully I'm wrong on that, but I'm just not convinced he's the right fit for our scheme.
Bingo all the way around, but remember this is the key: With this QB, and passing offense, you don't need the RB to be a "high reward". You just need him to be available, reliable, durable. Chris Johnson is "high reward". What's that gotten the Titans?
Woah woah woah, the packers only had 12 rushing Td's all year last year and I don't think Benson is going to score 2 more than the entire team did. If he breaks 1k yards and 6+ TD's his year will be a great success in my eyes. I think it would be off target to say he is going to take the ball from Rodgers hand in the red zone that often. Rodgers is our bell cow and we will win or lose on his arm not any of the legs of the Rb's on the roster.
You aren't kidding with CJ2K not being the high reward. That goes for the stud RB's in general actually. My article quotes this, but it's worth repeating here... here's a list of the most recent starting Super Bowl RB's: Ahmad Bradshaw, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Pierre Thomas, Joseph Addai, Willie Parker, Tim Hightower, Brandon Jacobs, Laurence Maroney, Thomas Jones, and Cedric Benson. Kind of motley crew, don't you think! It just goes to show that in today's NFL, the passing game rulees.
When people say "you have to run to keep the D honest" it comes from an old mentality. The NFL has changed and last year showed. The changes in the rules among many other things have players passing for 5,000!!!! Yards. It's obvious who is getting the ball. It's obvious teams are going to throw it. It's just that no one can stop it consistently.
That's true, which is why going after a guy like Benson is logical. All McCarthy wants is a guy who can last. That's it. But imagine this: If we were to run it a little better..... to keep defenses like the Giants from always pinning their ears back and stunting, going after Rodgers 100%, it would help keep Rodgers upright better/longer and it would relieve a little pressure on the OT's from the constant pass rush mentality from the JPPs and Demarcus Wares, Peppers, etc. I really want to, and imagine McCarthy is thinking the same, take advantage of these opportunities by occasionally hurting these defenses with some runs, beit traps, draws, etc. That's kind of why I want a guy who is a fast, dangerous type. All it takes is one long one to the house to make them think twice about selling all out at the QB time & time again. Benson is not that kind of guy. Alex Green might be, but again, durability.... let's hope he can start to last.
Okay, here is my prediction. Benson will make the team and start. He will play 16 games. His work load will increase as the season goes on. Green will develop and take more carries later in the season. 220 carries/ 900 yards/ 9 tds / 20 rec/ 140 yds/ 1 td Risk/Reward? He doesn't have high reward at this point - he won't go all Arian Foster for us. But he could still be a very good NFL RB. But there is little downside. Worst case scenario, he's older than we know, and he breaks down after 2 games. Then we cut him and the cost was losing development time for the young guys. On the positive side, maybe his experience helped those young guys somehow. Therefore: No Risk - potential big reward. Great signing.
I disagree. The old mentality is 'run the ball to set up the pass'. IMO the success of the WCO was the biggest factor in changing that mentality league-wide and the trend in rule changes which favor the passing game accelerated it. If teams don't run in order to keep Ds honest, why do teams like the Packers run at all? Over the past three seasons if you remove Rodgers' rushing attempts, McCarthy's offenses have run the ball a little more than 35% of the time. What defies conventional wisdom IMO is I believe statistical analysis reveals that except in short-yardage and end-of-game-protect-the-lead drives, the number of rushing attempts is as important as success running the ball. While that may be counter-intuitive it supports the notion that its the threat of a run that is necessary to aid in protecting the QB and ultimately for success passing the ball. Ask any O lineman who plays for an NFL team which emphasizes the pass and he will tell you he loves running plays because they enable him to punish opponents by delivering a blow instead of receiving them. It is extremely difficult to protect the passer play after play after play if the D knows the O will be passing the ball every play. Beyond that, one of the reasons HCs like McCarthy give QBs like Rodgers the ability to audible at the LOS is to take advantage of Ds which are going "all out" to stop either the run or the pass. That's the essence of keeping the D honest and not relentlessly pinning its ears back going after the QB. BTW, that's also the reason we really don't know the exact percentage of run/pass plays called by McCarthy. IMO a fair reading of this post implies that McCarthy is foolishly "wasting" plays running the ball except in short yardage and end of game drives. IMO those fans who advocate for more running plays are incorrect but this post goes too far in the other direction. In summary, if McCarthy doesn't run the ball to keep Ds honest, what reason(s) (other than the two circumstances mentioned) do you believe he has for doing so? Or is he just wrong in not calling passing plays 90% - 95% of the time?
I agree that you want to have a set number of running plays. Throwing too much is a bad thing, as the success rate of a QB throwing 50x is very very low. Rodgers last season was middle of the league for attempts per game, which is amazing. It was a good balance. My issue becomes when people are trying to get away from this offense, when it was the 2nd best in nfl history. There has been some work done by researchers to show that teams don't throw enough and that they are too conservative. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet but here is the article, it's a good read, please let me know what you think http://www.twominutewarning.com/playcall2.htm
I don't have time to digest/analyze parts I and II of that TwoMinuteWarning piece but the subject matter of "predictability rate" (at least on one side of the ball) seems at first glance to relate directly to "keeping the defense honest". First I should say I think we mostly agree about the Packers' play calling; both of us have disagreed with posters who argue for a more balanced attack which would result in a greater emphasis on the running game. Here's what I don’t understand: What is it about the idea "NFL teams should run the ball in order to keep Ds honest" you disagree with? Said another way, why do you agree "you want to have a set number of running plays"? If the reason to have that set number of running plays is not to keep defenses off balance, what is the reason? For example, isn't it reasonable to believe that the reason teams struggle when they throw more than 50 times in a game is that they are not keeping the defense honest; that the defense doesn't have to be concerned about getting burned by the run?
I think it's a wear on the offense to have WRs running sprints and the QB blowing out his arm by throwing so much. Kind of like a pitch count in baseball. It's a theory and I don't have a ton to back it up other than it seems like its the number of snaps not the production of them. As weird as that sounds.
Yet none of the teams that cracked 5000 won the Super Bowl. The team that had the worst running game until the playoffs the last 2 years have won the Super Bowl. Also I will be happy with Benson cracking 1000 yards and at least 6-9 TD's
I am not condemning the signing in any way. I am glad to see they picked him up on the cheap. I would have gone for someone younger that wont make the cut but thats splitting hairs. right the SB winner didnt, but the two teams threw for a combined 9,818 yards last season. Thats not chump change.
I've gotta say I'm happy with this signing as long as he can keep himself out of trouble which is a big if. I mean over the last 3 years he's averaged over 1100 yds. and 6 TDs a season, our yardage leader last year was Starks with 578 yards, our TD leader was Kuhn with 4... enough said.
But, you need to consider the vast difference in carries. Starks had 133 carries, Benson 273 carries. Benson will not get the 18-20 carries per game that he needs in order to get to 1,000 yards. With his career average of 3.8 yards per carry, that means we are looking at around 140 attempts for 532 yards. That's what gets lost in this discussion about Benson's overall stats. He's a volume runner to get those yards. He won't get the volume carries in this offense. We need to lower our expectations for Benson. If he gets 600-700 yards with around 5-6 TD's, that is a successful season.
I believe giving Benson 18 carries a game would be a good idea. He is a rb that gets better as he gets more carries. I have watched him a lot the past 2 years since he was on my fantasy football squad.
Agreed, what I'm saying is we're going to have a better season running the ball with Benson in the mix than we did last year.
do you think this could be a desperation move because of our lack of depth in the running back position? with Starks being shaky because of his on going turf toe, and Alex Green not being 100%
I'm sure this is about 98% of it. Turf toe can linger and linger and when you play rb one cut can inflate that turf toe in a hurr so it can take some time to heal. With Green his injury looks to have healed 96% so he just needs to work his way back into being comfortable cutting, and even taking a few hits to his knee. I think Benson will eventually become the starter however. Altho Green and even Sane seem more suited for our style of offense because they can catch Benson has two things they lack at this point of their careers...durability and experience.
I do like Benson and hopefully he can turn into somewhat of a receiving back, but I just don't know how good our run blocking is because I honestly don't even remember seeing a running play in all the games I watched last season, so I'm excited to see if maybe we'll incorporate the run a little bit more to take some of that pressure off of Arron Rodgers because he is honestly carrying the team on his back and has been for the last two season's.
