Texans bringing in running back Cedric Benson

WMH · #1 03-01-2009, 07:23 PM

From the Chronic:

The Texans saw enough of running back Cedric Benson last season when he rushed for 747 yards for Cincinnati to be interested in signing him to back up Steve Slaton.

Benson, 26, was interested in joining the Texans last year when Chicago waived him, but the Texans declined. After he stayed out of trouble and averaged 118.3 yards rushing in the Bengals' three-game winning streak to close the season, the Texans were impressed enough to bring him in for a visit.

Benson, the Midland native who played at the University of Texas and was the fourth overall pick in the 2005 draft, started 10 games with the Bengals. He had three 100-yard games, including 171 in a victory over Cleveland and 111 in a victory over Kansas City.

The Texans have been looking for a back to play behind Slaton, a job the injury-plagued Ahman Green could have had if he had been able to stay healthy. The Texans still want to draft a young back, but if they sign Benson, it won't be a priority position.

Mike · #2 03-01-2009, 07:46 PM

I have been critical of Ced. In fact, probably downright mean, but I have to give him credit, he played much better with Cincy. He looked like a different player with the Bengals than he did with the Bears. Everyone deserves a second chance to make amends. I hope he learned from his experience in Chicago and the off field issue.

HPF Bob · #3 03-01-2009, 08:03 PM

I don't think Benson is a good match for us. He's a below-average receiver and he's not a cut-back runner. He doesn't make people miss as much as he slides forward for some extra yards after contact.

I wish him well but he would be a waste of time coming to Houston.

cloudwasher · #4 03-01-2009, 08:12 PM

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds. He did have three games last season with the Bengals where he got 100+ years, but if you got back and look at those games he didnt get better than 4.5 yards/carry in any of those games (Cle 38-171 Avg 4.5, Jac 24-104 Avg. 4.3, Kc 25-111 Avg 4.4). So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry. He might still be able to make some kind of comeback with some other team, but unless they can sign him for less than one mil a yr (unlikely) then he isn't worth it imo.

bckey · #5 03-01-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds. He did have three games last season with the Bengals where he got 100+ years, but if you got back and look at those games he didnt get better than 4.5 yards/carry in any of those games (Cle 38-171 Avg 4.5, Jac 24-104 Avg. 4.3, Kc 25-111 Avg 4.4). So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry. He might still be able to make some kind of comeback with some other team, but unless they can sign him for less than one mil a yr (unlikely) then he isn't worth it imo.

The other side of that is that they had no passing game this year and were a pretty crappy team. So for Benson to a 4.5, 4.4, and 4.3 avg. is really pretty good since teams were keying on him.

Joe Joe · #6 03-01-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

So in other words, he didnt get a lot of yards because he did well but rather because the Bengals had no better options than to give him the ball. For the 2008 season he averaged 3.5 yards/carry.

When Cedric Benson is your best offensive weapon, Cedric Benson rushing for 3.5 yds/carry ain't bad. It ain't good, but then again...Cedric Benson is not a star player. Cincy's once prolific passing attack is no more. Provided he doesn't think he's a top player, he may be a good cheap pickup. He may be able to be a good back for the system as he doesn't try for the big gainers and generally takes what the defense gives him.

Again, don't expect superman, but I think he would fit nicely as a backup if he stays out of trouble.

barrett · #7 03-01-2009, 09:44 PM

If he comes in as a short yardage guy he is not bad. Short yardage guys don't need to cutback run or make people miss. They need to start quick, get low, and stick it in there. If he can do that at not much gauranteed money, sign him. Then draft a guy low anyways and take the best one out of camp.

coloradodude · #8 03-01-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudwasher

I'd hate to see them bring in Benson. For the price he would ask, you'd be better off drafting a back from the late rounds.

Yep...and most of those numbers were David Carr numbers. Games were over.

dadmg · #9 03-01-2009, 10:57 PM

This sounds like a pretty bad, if inexpensive, idea.

barrett · #10 03-02-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadmg

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?

gunslinger57 · #11 03-02-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coloradodude

Yep...and most of those numbers were David Carr numbers. Games were over.

The only way a RB would run up big numbers where "games were over" is when their team is running away with it and just trying to run out the clock. Cincy didn't have a lot of those last year. Seems to me that might have actually depressed his numbers a bit.

Joshua · #12 03-02-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunslinger57

The only way a RB would run up big numbers where "games were over" is when their team is running away with it and just trying to run out the clock. Cincy didn't have a lot of those last year. Seems to me that might have actually depressed his numbers a bit.

I didn't watch many Bengals games last year so I have no idea how he played. However, RBs can absolutely get garbage yards when their team is behind (particularly if they are behind by double digits). Defenses are generally more than happy to let a team run the ball and thus, prevent the big play and keep the clock running. That's why they are in the prevent D and have 5 or 6 DBs on the field.

Nconroe · #13 03-02-2009, 10:07 AM

if there isn't much up front guaranteed, then why not let him try out and see what is there. if it doesn't work, easy to cut in this league for now. for me , depends what kind of contract and guarantees being looked at. He might be that guy that helps us crack the end zone we couldn't seem to cross last year, as someone else mentioned.

John S · #14 03-02-2009, 10:48 AM

We should take if he comes on the cheap. At least he is under 30.

papabear · #15 03-02-2009, 11:37 AM

Like everyone else it all depends on the contract.

BigBull · #16 03-02-2009, 12:06 PM

After reading his comments in the chronicle I think he is using the Texans for leverage against the Bangles.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6289379.html

dadmg · #17 03-02-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

painekiller · #18 03-02-2009, 01:38 PM

I think a lot of people forget that Kubiak does not like rookie RBs. They only know how to run, they do not know how to block much less which hole (the blitzer will come thru) is the hot one.

We saw it last when Slayton went the wrong way on s blocking assignment and Schaub was clobbered.

Now even I, the voice yelling the most for at least 2 RBs in the draft, know that Kubiak is not inclined to break camp with a 2nd year guy and 2 rookies. So all that leads to this, depending on his contract, Benson has shown he can be a good citizen. I think he just got off to a really bad start in Chicago and things went bad from there.

As to running style, in short yardage as barrett pointed out you want a guy to bull forward with a low pad level. Benson has the potential, but has yet to show the desire level to be the best. Maybe the last 18 months have been a wake up call.

That all said he is worth a flyer if the contract is done correctly.

barrett · #19 03-02-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadmg

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.

Bigtinylittle · #20 03-02-2009, 02:29 PM

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.