IntheBullseye.com  

Go Back   IntheBullseye.com > Hot Reads ...In the Bullseye > The Texans
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:16 AM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadmg View Post
This sounds like a pretty bad, if inexpensive, idea.
There is no such thing in football. IF a guy is inexpensive, he can't be a bad idea because he can be cut at any time. Some of you guys prefer a draft pick, why not both if the gauranteed money is low. Then let them fight for a spot. You cannot lose out when two guys fight for a spot instead of one being given it.

Now if his 3 game stretch with the bungles convinced him he deserves good money, don't even look at him. But if he can be had for little gauranteed, why not look?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:20 PM
dadmg dadmg is offline
Veteran Depth
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spearfish, SD
Posts: 203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
There is no such thing in football. IF a guy is inexpensive, he can't be a bad idea because he can be cut at any time.
My thought (and I could be wildly wrong; wouldn't be the first time) is that if the front office picks up Benson they won't feel a need to bring in another backup running back. And I don't think Benson's the answer to any question I want to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:55 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadmg View Post
My thought (and I could be wildly wrong; wouldn't be the first time) is that if the front office picks up Benson they won't feel a need to bring in another backup running back. And I don't think Benson's the answer to any question I want to hear.
SO if they add Benson they go to camp with 2 RBs? There will be rookie RBs in camp no matter what. Even if they are camp fodder and are just carrying the ball in preseason games to keep the vets healthy, we will have rookies at RB.

If you can add a vet cheap you do it. Then you cut him if you see that a younger player can do the job better. NFL 101 right there.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:29 PM
Bigtinylittle Bigtinylittle is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 262
Default

I am going to go ahead and predict that if we sign Ced, he will be the second best back we have had under Kubiak. Dayne might have been better on first and ten, especially toward the end of games, but Ced will be much better on third and one. I say if the price is right go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:32 PM
dadmg dadmg is offline
Veteran Depth
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spearfish, SD
Posts: 203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrett View Post
If you can add a vet cheap you do it.
I agree with this in principle; I just don't feel the veteran they picked is worth it. Even with his draft pedigree holding him aloft, I'd be surprised if Benson's even still in the league two or three years from now. None of the free agent running backs look likely to set the world on fire, but I don't see any reason we should target an underachieving head case just to feel secure in our depth.

A further note: while its completely irrelevant to this argument (as its been set on the condition that he would be cheap), I'm beginning to wonder if that'll be the case. The Bengals, after the disastrous Chris Perry experiment, are trying to bring back Benson as their starter. A bidding war, even a relatively low-level one, over Benson makes me a bit nauseous.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:37 PM
coloradodude coloradodude is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Default

If they sign him I sure hope they find out how he is in the locker room. He has had some serious attitude problems along with legal problems.

I don't care about the legal issues because they usually take care of themselves. The attitude problems are cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:59 PM
nero THE zero nero THE zero is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spring
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadmg View Post
A further note: while its completely irrelevant to this argument (as its been set on the condition that he would be cheap), I'm beginning to wonder if that'll be the case. The Bengals, after the disastrous Chris Perry experiment, are trying to bring back Benson as their starter. A bidding war, even a relatively low-level one, over Benson makes me a bit nauseous.
I agree; he cites "business" several times in his interview regarding why he potentially will be leaving Cinci/coming to Houston:
Quote:
“I like being in Texas and Houston’s close to home,” Benson said after arriving at Hobby Airport. “I think the possibility is good (about signing with the Texans), but there’s always a business side to everything.”

Benson, 26, is a Midland native who played at the University of Texas before Chicago selected him with the fourth overall pick in 2005. Released after three years with the Bears, Benson signed with Cincinnati last season and rushed for 747 yards in 10 starts.

Benson was asked why he would accept a backup role with the Texans rather than a starting job with the Bengals.

“The business side here might be better than the business side in Cincinnati,” Benson said about contract negotiations.

“Also, there’s the Super Bowl. I had an opportunity to go to one (with Chicago), and I’d like to go back and win.”

Last year, the Texans weren’t interested in Benson when he was waived by the Bears. They became interested after watching him play for the Bengals and stay out of trouble off the field.

Benson’s legal issues have been cleared up.

“I have matured a little more,” he said. “A young man changes after he turns 21.”

The Bengals are trying to re-sign Benson, who had three 100-yard games for them. He closed the season with 171 and 111 yards in victories over Cleveland and Kansas City. The Bengals finished with a three-game winning streak in which Benson averaged 118.3 yards rushing.

“I think I proved that I’m the player everybody thought I could be,” Benson said. “I think it showed that I can get the job done, being a full-time back and carry the load.”

“Chicago fans asked me what was the difference? I told them it was simple: They gave me the football.”
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:43 PM
dadmg dadmg is offline
Veteran Depth
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spearfish, SD
Posts: 203
Default

Wow, that article is full of interesting reasoning.

Quote:
Last year, the Texans weren’t interested in Benson when he was waived by the Bears. They became interested after watching him play for the Bengals and stay out of trouble off the field.

Benson’s legal issues have been cleared up.

“I have matured a little more,” he said. “A young man changes after he turns 21.”
Of course, his most recent arrests came in the past year when he was 25. And I somehow don't find it all that impressive that he's "stay[ed] out of trouble off the field" for only about six months now.

Quote:
The Bengals are trying to re-sign Benson, who had three 100-yard games for them. He closed the season with 171 and 111 yards in victories over Cleveland and Kansas City. The Bengals finished with a three-game winning streak in which Benson averaged 118.3 yards rushing.

“I think I proved that I’m the player everybody thought I could be,” Benson said. “I think it showed that I can get the job done, being a full-time back and carry the load.”

“Chicago fans asked me what was the difference? I told them it was simple: They gave me the football.”
Yes, Cedric, the difference was literally that they gave you the football. They gave the ball to Cedric so much that his sheer yardage numbers looked decent. His yards-per-carry numbers, on the other hand, were awful. He averaged a woeful 3.5 YPC, which was the worst average last year for a back with significant carries. And the flourish against Cleveland and KC - well, those were two of weakest run defenses in the NFL which he was allowed to grind out 63 carries against. That'll certainly pad your stats. He proved he could carry the rock - just not very far from the line of scrimmage.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:03 PM
barrett barrett is offline
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadmg View Post
I agree with this in principle; I just don't feel the veteran they picked is worth it. Even with his draft pedigree holding him aloft, I'd be surprised if Benson's even still in the league two or three years from now. None of the free agent running backs look likely to set the world on fire, but I don't see any reason we should target an underachieving head case just to feel secure in our depth.

A further note: while its completely irrelevant to this argument (as its been set on the condition that he would be cheap), I'm beginning to wonder if that'll be the case. The Bengals, after the disastrous Chris Perry experiment, are trying to bring back Benson as their starter. A bidding war, even a relatively low-level one, over Benson makes me a bit nauseous.
Then sign a different one. I don't really care as long as we don't go into camp with a 2nd year player and a few rookies.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2009, 08:28 AM
cadams cadams is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Default

I dont have any problem signing him if he really is fine with 10 or less touches per game. There is no question he could be a decent to solid second option behind Slayton. AND, signing him would allow the texans to use picks on the best players available (likely on defens) throughout the draft, which is what I think they should do..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-03-2009, 10:00 AM
jppaul jppaul is offline
Regular Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 343
Default

I LOVE DEFENS, almost like the typing equivalent of a lisp.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.