Cedric Benson to the Pack

[Kitten]

Still waiting to see Saine in action during the preseason

That's what I'm waiting for! I think he could be beast.

 

[milani]

I don't think he is simply a has been. We may carry more RBs this season. IN 2010 we had 3 FBs. What a waste.
Sherman had the armada of Green, Davenport, and Tony Fisher. It helped compensate for a lack of quality receivers. As we get to that point in the season I like having a veteran around even though he won't get the ball like an Adrian Peterson. New England always has at least one veteran RB around and they seem to use him effectively.

By next year maybe Saine or Green may rise to the next level and Benson can move on. Starks can still do a lot but will never be a 16 game pounder. He's not made for that. Having Benson around on the road in crunch time in a playoff game gives me a positive feeling. The opposing team should not feel the same.

 

[bozz_2006]

The last has-been we signed turned out pretty well for us.

 

[wxman2003]

Would prefer that TT went out and got a really good backup left tackle to protect the only player that matters. Running will never be an important part of the Packer game plan. Packers currently have backs that can give them 70 yards a game rushing. That's all they need since AR gives them another 25 to 30 yards rushing every game. Good tackles give AR the time he needs to pass or scramble outside the pocket, bad tackles do not. Now with that being said, I'm sure there will be a few starting tackles that will be released during the preseason cut downs, so I am hoping TT will find one. It's great having a ton of skilled offensive players, but without quality grunt work players, the skilled players do not perform as well. Rather have a good set of tackles than using quality tight ends for protecting the qb. Since AR has already had 2 concussions, the protocol for number 3 is much more stringent. Perhaps as long as a month or more on the sidelines. Great qb's need top notch tackles. I don't want to see the career of AR being shortened because TT doesn't want to spend money on tackles. Draft and develop is fine for skilled positions, not for linemen.

 

[jaybadger82]

Would be nice to add a LT, but the RB often plays a critical role in pass protection, especially against the blitz.

I understand that Rodgers hasn't been at all happy with Starks in this regard...

 

[wxman2003]

Defenses won't need to blitz if tackles are not that good. Send 4 and drop back 7 and still get to the qb. That's why the emphasis is to draft excellent defensive ends to rush the qb in the pass happy NFL. If you don't have to blitz and can harrass the qb with 4 linemen, it will be much harder to complete as many passes on 3rd down. Giants proved that last year. They have best front 4 in the NFL. If the Packers had a better O/L they might have won that game despite the defense. Running backs are not as important as in the past. Peterson and Chris Johnson are great backs on very poor teams with poor qb's. I will take a quality qb with a quality O/L than a quality rb any day.

 

[armand34]

if someone were to sign charles woodson or donald driver to another team, they would call those guys "has-beens" .... I expect a positive contribution from Benson & crossing my fingers on a domino effect to the future backfield of Saine & Green...starks probably won't be kept

 

[bozz_2006]

Which LT are you referring to, exactly?

 

[wxman2003]

Kareem McKenzie, Tony Pashos, Vernon Carey, Stacy Andrews

 

[Vltrophy]

I got CBs autograph today.

 

[jaybadger82]

Defenses won't need to blitz if tackles are not that good. Send 4 and drop back 7 and still get to the qb. That's why the emphasis is to draft excellent defensive ends to rush the qb in the pass happy NFL. If you don't have to blitz and can harrass the qb with 4 linemen, it will be much harder to complete as many passes on 3rd down. Giants proved that last year. They have best front 4 in the NFL. If the Packers had a better O/L they might have won that game despite the defense. Running backs are not as important as in the past. Peterson and Chris Johnson are great backs on very poor teams with poor qb's. I will take a quality qb with a quality O/L than a quality rb any day.

A better offensive line might have helped against the Giants. We also might have won if our receivers held onto more balls or the defense hadn't given up so many plays...

The RB often plays a key role in pass protection by supporting the offensive line when defenders stunt and blitz. They often serve as the QB's "personal bodyguard" on passing downs and they need to support the line where it's being hit hardest. Starks looked like garbage in pass protection against San Diego and I believe this is the primary reason we grabbed Benson. I think you're overlooking this when you talk broadly about quality RBs above. They remain important, they're just not always carrying the ball.

Otherwise- sure- I would love to see us upgrade at left tackle as well... that's brilliant.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The reports are that Benson is getting the vet minimum of $850,000 for one year with no bonus or guarantees. We can cut him at any time without liability. With Starks, Kuhn and Saine dinged up and Green coming off the ACL, Benson can't hurt and he doesn't cost much. Best to look at him as better than nothing.

This kind of contract, as with Muir and Hargrove, is a put-up-or-shut-up deal. If Benson doesn't throw down he'll be out of work next year, if not sooner, with severely diminished chances of catching on somewhere else. That should be a motivation.

In this offense the priorities in the running game are short yardage, goal line and 4th. quarter, in that order. Think of Benson as insurance for Kuhn as much as Starks, which helps to explain why TT would go for a Benson rather than a Grant...he needs a guy to get the tough yard or two when it's most needed.

If Benson can control his fumbling, on and off the field, he'll likely be an asset.

 

[ivo610]

The reports are that Benson is getting the vet minimum of $850,000 for one year with no bonus or guarantees. We can cut him at any time without liability. With Starks, Kuhn and Saine dinged up and Green coming off the ACL, Benson can't hurt and he doesn't cost much. Best to look at him as better than nothing.

This kind of contract, as with Muir and Hargrove, is a put-up-or-shut-up deal. If Benson doesn't throw down he'll be out of work next year, if not sooner, with severely diminished chances of catching on somewhere else. That should be a motivation.

In this offense the priorities in the running game are short yardage, goal line and 4th. quarter, in that order. Think of Benson as insurance for Kuhn as much as Starks, which helps to explain why TT would go for a Benson rather than a Grant...he needs a guy to get the tough yard or two when it's most needed.

If Benson can control his fumbling, on and off the field, he'll likely be an asset.

I'm pretty sure the contract is fully guaranteed the first game of the year, but not until then

 

[rodell330]

why not just bring Ryan Grant back? heres a guy that knows the offense and could pick up the blitz. Cedric Benson had some good years but i think the money was the biggest reason he was chosen over ryan Grant. This does not bode well for Starks imo, heres a guy who has every chance in the world to be the starter and can't stay healthy or pick up the blitz...even in year three.

 

[Ceodore]

Not crazy about this pickup, Chicago radio said this morning that they drafted him in '05. That's quite a few years for a RB....

 

[Packfan14]

why not just bring Ryan Grant back? heres a guy that knows the offense and could pick up the blitz. Cedric Benson had some good years but i think the money was the biggest reason he was chosen over ryan Grant. This does not bode well for Starks imo, heres a guy who has every chance in the world to be the starter and can't stay healthy or pick up the blitz...even in year three.

maybe grant didn't get looked at b/c of his holdout back in 2008.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29548649.html

http://iqfb.com/in-the-news/packers-running-back-ryan-grant-continues-holdout/

 

[The Real Pack Attack]

I have no problem with this signing. Signed for the league vet minimum. So they didn't break the bank on him. Maybe this will light a fire under Starks butt! Starks to me has been a huge disappointment. Can't stay healthy, continues to have problems with blitz pick-ups. Maybe this will help him get his head outa his ***!!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm pretty sure the contract is fully guaranteed the first game of the year, but not until then

I stand corrected. I don't know about the new CBA, but the old provided that guarantee for players with 4 years of service. The new CBA is likely similar.

Nonetheless, the financial risk is minimal. If Benson makes it to game 1, it might cost either Saine or Green his job. That would not have a material impact on team performance in my opinion.

 

[Rodgers in the House]

It's like what the Patriots did when they picked up Cory Dillon. Look what happened that year.

 

[El Guapo]

maybe grant didn't get looked at b/c of his holdout back in 2008

I read an article this weekend that hinted strongly at this point. Grant's agent was publicly furious at the Packers during Grant's holdout, which was at the same time as the Favre saga. Since Grant was a restricted free agent at the time, Grant's agent used the bad Favre publicity to pressure Russ Ball and the Packers into a big money contract that Grant didn't really deserve. After all of that and three seasons of relatively mild production, why show big love to Grant. He's a nice guy and all but business is business, and if you drive a hard bargain you can expect it to come back at you.

All said though, I think the Packers needed someone else to give it a go.

 

[TJV]

Old behind Ced Ben? What, too proud to go back to Grant or Ahman Green? This some bull

It looks like you backed off of this somewhat but I'm still surprised to see this sentiment among Packers fans. Thompson may be characterized as cold and calculating but from what I've witnessed I'd say he's in the bottom quarter of NFL GMs with regard to displays of ego or pride. Of course it's fine to disagree with any decision he makes, but this just mischaracterizes it IMO. BTW, the mention of Ahman Green is funny as his behind is the oldest at 35 - 6 years older than Benson or Grant.

http://packerupdate.net/?p=21822
Packer Update presents a good argument for Benson over Grant, saying that since 2010 Benson is the better RB as he was more of a focus for opposing Ds than Grant. I heard on the radio this morning that Benson's contract has some guaranteed money but I doubt it's enough to affect their decision on him. It may also include some performance bonuses (which I'm always in favor of). The biggest downside I see with Benson is his ball security but even so, in NFL terms this is a low-risk "gamble". I do think the signing not only puts Starks' starting spot in jeopardy but also his roster spot. He really has to get his head on straight while he's rehabbing.

The advantage of Grant IMO is he is probably better at blitz pickup and he certainly knows the offense better. But my guess is he would probably require significantly more money.

As to acquiring a LT instead, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Even with some guaranteed money or if he's on the roster on opening day, Benson didn't break the bank. In addition I think we are about to see if Reggie Wells can be an adequate (adequate, not great) LT. It's been reported that Wells has taken snaps at LT with the first team. If they determine he is adequate there, the only way I see Thompson going after another LT is if Newhouse doesn't look improved from last year once he gets back on the practice field.

 

[longtimefan]

Benson fumbled way more than Grant ever did

 

[Rocky11]

I hope he can block well and get a needed first down consistently.

 

[El Guapo]

True, but Benson also had more than twice as many carries as Grant did over the past three seasons so you need to look at fumbles per attempt. Instead of 3 versus 12 fumbles which looks like he fumbles four times as often, he actually only fumbles twice as often, not four times as often. That is still a significant increase but certainly not as bad. Although, for the number of attempts per game we are talking about a fumble every 3-4 games for Benson with his old workload. Likely he'll get less carries in a Rodgers-led offense so you could reasonably assume that he'll fumble even less often than that

 

[HyponGrey]

It looks like you backed off of this somewhat but I'm still surprised to see this sentiment among Packers fans. Thompson may be characterized as cold and calculating but from what I've witnessed I'd say he's in the bottom quarter of NFL GMs with regard to displays of ego or pride. Of course it's fine to disagree with any decision he makes, but this just mischaracterizes it IMO.

In my case I was being facetious.

BTW, the mention of Ahman Green is funny as his behind is the oldest at 35 - 6 years older than Benson or Grant.

It was meant to be funny; I even thought about mentioning Moses. My point was that they are all too old, because RB careers are almost counted in dog years. It was pointed out to me that 30 is the usual cut off for RB, so Benson feasibly has one more year in him. Yes, that means I jumped the gun.[/quote]

http://packerupdate.net/?p=21822
Packer Update presents a good argument for Benson over Grant, saying that since 2010 Benson is the better RB as he was more of a focus for opposing Ds than Grant. I heard on the radio this morning that Benson's contract has some guaranteed money but I doubt it's enough to affect their decision on him. It may also include some performance bonuses (which I'm always in favor of).

The contract isn't really an issue for me anymore as it won't affect the cap. It was formerly my biggest umbrage with this signing until I found out he signed for near nothing. I agree with you on the performance bonuses, incentive to do well is almost never wrong.

The biggest downside I see with Benson is his ball security but even so, in NFL terms this is a low-risk "gamble".

Gonna have to disagree, but I will admit that it is almost negligible when one considers how often we run the ball. Turnovers are (to quote woodchipper) "kind of a big deal."

I do think the signing not only puts Starks' starting spot in jeopardy but also his roster spot. He really has to get his head on straight while he's rehabbing.

There is a lot of truth to that. Starks' upright running leads to entirely too many injuries. While he is supposed to be the our feature back, it is entirely possible that he will be replaced as soon as next year.

The advantage of Grant IMO is he is probably better at blitz pickup and he certainly knows the offense better. But my guess is he would probably require significantly more money

I thought Benson would be the more expensive player. Obviously I was wrong.

As to acquiring a LT instead, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Even with some guaranteed money or if he's on the roster on opening day, Benson didn't break the bank. In addition I think we are about to see if Reggie Wells can be an adequate (adequate, not great) LT. It's been reported that Wells has taken snaps at LT with the first team. If they determine he is adequate there, the only way I see Thompson going after another LT is if Newhouse doesn't look improved from last year once he gets back on the practice field.

Yep. That about sums it up. The only question is if Wells makes it to the reguar season, and who gets cut in his stead.