Hey news about Cedric "The Bust" Benson

[Tarkus]

Quote: Originally Posted by P2K

True, even though he has a nice backup in Leon Washington.

? Lost ya there...

Quote:

All I ask is for Thomas Jones numbers. He can't even do that. He can go to the AP backing him up to see possibly a better back lol. Peterson didn't look all that shabby with the bad QB. A QB that's been bad since he's been there.

All my point has been is when hearing how easy to blame Benson as the problem that it's not that simple. It a slew of problems in Chicago.

First, the QB position hasn't been consistently bad the whole time. In the 2006 SB year , Grossman had ups & downs but had at least 7 games over 100 rating. The success they had passing translated to a better run game, plain & simple. Jones, Peterson, & Benson had YPCs of over 4 yards.

2007 had Benson & Peterson boasting a paltry 3.4 YPC. Now did Peterson go into the tank also from the previous year? No...the OL did neither guy any favors with how they performed & with Grossman not having at least a decent amount of success like in 2006, it just made that offense completely feeble.

You say you just want Thomas Jones #s? OK, last year TJ had a 3.6 YPC but like you said...he at least got 1116 yards with that "pathetic" Jets OL. OK, he did that with 310 carries. If you project that amount of carries for Benson (since he only played 11 games due to injury), he ends up with roughly 1055. Is it that big of a difference? & how did the dismal Bear showing last year not have them deemed "pathetic" also?

You can even throw in TJ's receptions. TJ had 28 catches for 217 with a 7.8 YPC. Benson 17 catches for 123 with a 7.2 YPC. Project that one for CB & what do you have? Maybe 40 yards difference? It just shows what being on a poor team will do for a player.

This isn't truly an debate since we both agree that CB has to do what a #4 pick is supposed to do which he's not. His #s would be looked at a lot differently, tho still sub par, if he was a 6 round choice but he's not. He's got to find a way but at the same time, the OL & Grossman do too. Otherwise, like I said before, he could be Minnesota's Adrian Peterson & still fail.

edit: Didn't mean to get this far off topic but I think some of the backlash for the boat incident is based on his play which has nothing to do with the incident.

[wwharton]

I think you summed it all up perfectly.

A) a lot of backlash from the incident is b/c people criticize his play (he has also been a bit mouthy so deserves some backlash for his play and the incident)

B) he needs to prove he deserved the high pick BUT he has still yet to prove that he didn't deserve it b/c the line was god awful, as was the QB.

C) Thomas Jones did about the same thing last year as Benson but people still think he would've been a pro bowler if he was on the Bears last year, ignoring how much worse the oline played.

[P2K]

Not buying that one bit. Friggin' Adrian Peterson was able to run behind that line and he's a scrubini. The line being so bad is trully being overblown. They certainly looked better with Jones back there.

[Tarkus]

I guess we'll just have to disagree even tho the facts Bear out that AP ran absolutely no better than CB last year. As a matter of fact, the exact same 3.4 YPC. So yes, AP was able to run behind that line...as bad as CB. You don't need much more proof than that from where I sit.

& when you erroneously bring up that the OL looked better with Jones back there, you're using the 2006 stats that had CB with the exact same 4.1 YPC. We're talking a year later...in '07 & the OL did not play to the '06 standards even when CB was injured & AP was the main man.

Excuse me for being a little ticked but since I've been a Bear fan for over 40 years, not missing a game & had the immense distaste of seeing the OL go into the tank in '07 & added to the list of Bear woes, listening that the OL is not a problem is a bit staggering. Hate CB all you want, he's earned enough scorn in many ways but at least stay current on the facts. They blow your assertions all to Hell...

[P2K]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarkus

I guess we'll just have to disagree even tho the facts Bear out that AP ran absolutely no better than CB last year. As a matter of fact, the exact same 3.4 YPC. So yes, AP was able to run behind that line...as bad as CB. You don't need much more proof than that from where I sit. & when you erroneously bring up that the OL looked better with Jones back there, you're using the 2006 stats that had CB with the exact same 4.1 YPC. We're talking a year later...in '07 & the OL did not play to the '06 standards even when CB was injured & AP was the main man. Excuse me for being a little ticked but since I've been a Bear fan for over 40 years, not missing a game & had the immense distaste of seeing the OL go into the tank in '07 & added to the list of Bear woes, listening that the OL is not a problem is a bit staggering. Hate CB all you want, he's earned enough scorn in many ways but at least stay current on the facts. They blow your assertions all to Hell...

How can an offensive line, that had two Pro Bowlers...one being an All-Pro, go from very good one year and turn into utter **** the following year? Nobody left. The only thing that changed was the starting runningback. One that is not as good as Thomas Jones. And bringing up AP's ypc doesn't mean anything because the guy is slop. But the fact that he was productive as he was tells me something.

Bear fan or not, I'm not buying into the thinking you bear fans want to use. Plain and simple.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by P2K

How can an offensive line, that had two Pro Bowlers...one being an All-Pro, go from very good one year and turn into utter **** the following year? Nobody left. The only thing that changed was the starting runningback. One that is not as good as Thomas Jones. And bringing up AP's ypc doesn't mean anything because the guy is slop. But the fact that he was productive as he was tells me something. Bear fan or not, I'm not buying into the thinking you bear fans want to use. Plain and simple.

I think you realize it but you really aren't making any sense. You just said bringing up AP's ypc doesn't mean anything? How can you say he ran well behind the line but then say his ypc doesn't mean anything when there's proof that he ran no better behind the line than CB? And if you look at his limited stats from 06 you'll also see that AP ran better behind the 06 line.

Your question is a pretty bad one too. The success of a football team is dependent on all the players on the field. A QB with a quick release who can read defenses quickly can make an average Oline look good... as can a shifty back who can avoid tackles behind the line of scrimmage. Meanwhile a good Oline can make an average QB/RB look better. All the players are tied together. There are many reasons a line can look worse a year later, starting with injury and age. It's not a videogame. You can't just bring in the same ratings the next year and then assume the same results.

[Tarkus]

I'm just walking away from this one, wwharton

His replies are obviously just a contrary, contradicting, & need to argue approach here. For every time a 'theory' is debunked in the spirit of debate using his own criteria, you're met with inane comments. I wish I hadn't wasted my time...

Great points on yours tho...

[P2K]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I think you realize it but you really aren't making any sense. You just said bringing up AP's ypc doesn't mean anything? How can you say he ran well behind the line but then say his ypc doesn't mean anything when there's proof that he ran no better behind the line than CB? And if you look at his limited stats from 06 you'll also see that AP ran better behind the 06 line.

Because Chicago's AP is not even a good backup, yet he produced behind this so-called terrible line. 3.4 ypc with the yards he gathered...coming from him...he must've thought he was in dreamland.

Quote:

Your question is a pretty bad one too. The success of a football team is dependent on all the players on the field. A QB with a quick release who can read defenses quickly can make an average Oline look good... as can a shifty back who can avoid tackles behind the line of scrimmage. Meanwhile a good Oline can make an average QB/RB look better. All the players are tied together. There are many reasons a line can look worse a year later, starting with injury and age. It's not a videogame. You can't just bring in the same ratings the next year and then assume the same results.

But there were no injuries and nobody is that aged. Try again.