Ickey44
-
Posts
2,739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ickey44
-
-
Damn Ickey. You're kind of a dick when someone points out an obvious error. You get all defensive and angry. Kinda like Mommabearcat, no?
See, here I was thinking the same thing about you. I made a simple harmless statement and instead of politely disagreeing with me you were a complete douche about it and jumped my s**t. Anyway, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
You're silly. Go back and read my initial response. There was no slight against you at all. Simply stats showing you were incorrect. You then got s**tty, attempting to call me stupid by claiming I was responding to something you never said (which you did).
And your "simple harmless statement" was an incorrect statement that you didn't bother to fact check. I merely pointed out your error... you're the one that got s**tty. But I wouldn't want to ruin a good story with facts that are a matter of public record.
I'm silly? You responded to my post with running backs I wasn't even referring to. And yes, I've reread your intial post, and yes I still think you were being a douche, which is why I responded the way I did.
Anyhow, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this so let's just let it go. Either way, we both agree that Benson getting lots of carries equals wins for us and if it gets us to the Superbowl....who cares?
Wait... isn't that what we're arguing about? You want Benson to get the ball less to try to save tread on his tires. If you're okay with it, why the hell are you arguing with me? Other than to be difficult... and of course, s**tty.
No, we're arguing because you took exception with something I said. I said that I'd like for Benson to get less carries to save him some wear and tear, but if it means us getting to the Superbowl then I'm all for it.
Ok. Help me out then. Since you found the fact that I disagreed with you and responded with cold hard statistics to be a "douchy" thing to do... how should one disagree with you in a future that will not warrant such disdain?
Perhaps I should have responded in kind with absolute statements before bothering to fact check. When in Rome...
You're statistics didn't have anything to do with what I said and were for players I wasn't even talking about. And I don't care if you disagree with me or not, but if you're going to be a dick, don't cry and complain when I treat you the same in kind.
-
Blah blah blah
I don't know why that rant is directed at me. TJ asked the question, your answer seemed to imply that we shouldn't take the starters out for any reason whatsoever, so I asked for clarification.
Aside from that, I don't think the scenario is all that unlikely considering we have games against Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland, and KC left on the schedule.
-
Damn Ickey. You're kind of a dick when someone points out an obvious error. You get all defensive and angry. Kinda like Mommabearcat, no?
See, here I was thinking the same thing about you. I made a simple harmless statement and instead of politely disagreeing with me you were a complete douche about it and jumped my s**t. Anyway, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
You're silly. Go back and read my initial response. There was no slight against you at all. Simply stats showing you were incorrect. You then got s**tty, attempting to call me stupid by claiming I was responding to something you never said (which you did).
And your "simple harmless statement" was an incorrect statement that you didn't bother to fact check. I merely pointed out your error... you're the one that got s**tty. But I wouldn't want to ruin a good story with facts that are a matter of public record.
I'm silly? You responded to my post with running backs I wasn't even referring to. And yes, I've reread your intial post, and yes I still think you were being a douche, which is why I responded the way I did.
Anyhow, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this so let's just let it go. Either way, we both agree that Benson getting lots of carries equals wins for us and if it gets us to the Superbowl....who cares?
Wait... isn't that what we're arguing about? You want Benson to get the ball less to try to save tread on his tires. If you're okay with it, why the hell are you arguing with me? Other than to be difficult... and of course, s**tty.
No, we're arguing because you took exception with something I said. I said that I'd like for Benson to get less carries to save him some wear and tear, but if it means us getting to the Superbowl then I'm all for it.
-
I guess we do. Case in point... Eddie George was quite productive in 2002 where he had over 1,000 yards and 12 TDs leading his team to the AFC South title. Also, his YPC was only 3.7 in 2000... so let's not act like his 3.5 YPC after that was something new for him. He was always a grinder. He wasn't a big play threat... he was steady Eddie.
I don't consider 3.5 YPC productive. I bet if that's what Benson's YPC was right now nobody here would be happy with it.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it wasn't one big season that ended these players careers... but their entire body of work? Eddie George had seven 1,000 yard seasons in eight years. Two of those 1,000 yard seasons came after his 2000 campaign that apparently ended his career in your eyes.I never said "career ending", I said they weren't the same and production declined. Stats aside, I remember watching George play after has 2000 season and he WASN'T the same. He used to run right through tackles and he couldn't do it anymore.
Or perhaps you just have trouble admitting when you're wrong, and are forced to play semantic games with words like "productive" to attempt to save face.Or is it.......the other way around?
-
Damn Ickey. You're kind of a dick when someone points out an obvious error. You get all defensive and angry. Kinda like Mommabearcat, no?
See, here I was thinking the same thing about you. I made a simple harmless statement and instead of politely disagreeing with me you were a complete douche about it and jumped my s**t. Anyway, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
You're silly. Go back and read my initial response. There was no slight against you at all. Simply stats showing you were incorrect. You then got s**tty, attempting to call me stupid by claiming I was responding to something you never said (which you did).
And your "simple harmless statement" was an incorrect statement that you didn't bother to fact check. I merely pointed out your error... you're the one that got s**tty. But I wouldn't want to ruin a good story with facts that are a matter of public record.
I'm silly? You responded to my post with running backs I wasn't even referring to. And yes, I've reread your intial post, and yes I still think you were being a douche, which is why I responded the way I did.
Anyhow, it's obvious we're not going to agree on this so let's just let it go. Either way, we both agree that Benson getting lots of carries equals wins for us and if it gets us to the Superbowl....who cares?
-
I don't know how it makes sense, that's just what the numbers suggest (even though you don't give credence to them).
I don't give much credence to them for the reasons I stated in several posts that you find it fit to ignore. Yes, every one of those backs had their best season in the year they had the most carries. But they were still productive, most of them for multiple years, afterward.
If you're only argument is that they were never able to repeat the same stats with fewer carries, then god help you, because logic is clearly lost on you.
I haven't ignored anything. I don't agree with your take on it, that's all. And again, it appears we have different definitions of what productive is.
-
Where have I even hinted at anything like that?
TJ asked why not rest certain players if we get a sizable lead in a game and you said something to the effect of Pittsburgh having an easier schedule than us the rest of the way.
-
Damn Ickey. You're kind of a dick when someone points out an obvious error. You get all defensive and angry. Kinda like Mommabearcat, no?
See, here I was thinking the same thing about you. I made a simple harmless statement and instead of politely disagreeing with me you were a complete douche about it and jumped my s**t. Anyway, hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
-
Who gives a s**t, if he gives the team the best chance of winning, keep handing him the ball. I doubt Ced will complain if the team is winning. Careers are short anyway, some end up being shorter than others. Does he want a Fred Taylor 13 yr career of obscurity or a chance at tangible success? We all know the answer to that.
The Vikes are going to ride AD for maybe the next 5 yrs, if he last even that without a serious injury. They'll then move on, and if in those 5 yrs everyone involved has a ring, you'll hear few complaints.
I'm all for giving him the ball if we keep winning, but I do not discount the fact that doing so might shorten his career.
This is a popular opinion that makes no sense. How does giving a RB 5 fewer carries a game result in several added years as an NFL RB? You realize that you're only saving him 80 carries for the season. How are those 80 carries are going to add several more years to the end of a career? The only argument that makes any sense is not wanting Benson to be worn out by the end of the season. Something else that I'm not very concerned about.
Also... Benson will be demanding serious coin on his next contract. A contract I'm hoping another team will pick up. So what do I care how long his career is? I just want him to help the Bengals win games this year and next.
I don't know how it makes sense, that's just what the numbers suggest (even though you don't give credence to them).
Yes, Benson will probably demand serious dollars when his contract is up. But if he's still performing like he is now, why not extend him for two more years? It's not every day you can find a back with his size and speed.
-
Ickey... it's ok to be wrong. It happens to the best of us.
Yes, I'm sure you're used to that feeling.
Let me give you some free advice that will help you in the future. Don't make absolute statements about things before checking the facts. Your statement "each one of those running backs on the top 10 list were never the same after that season" was wrong.It was not my intention to make an absolute statement even though I typed it out that way. I forgot to go back and change that sentence after I looked up Dickerson's stats.
Sure... most of those backs had their best season the same year they had the most carries. Stands to reason, no? But nearly every single one of them continued to be productive, despite the fact that after having MVP type seasons, opposing defenses would be keying in on them.It appears we have differing definitions of productive.
But this is a silly argument that is going nowhere.
Then why keep responding?
You and I both know that if Cedric Benson carrying the ball 400 times gives the Bengals any type of shot at winning a Super Bowl, that every Bengal fan will be on board.I never said I wasn't on board. I was simply stating that somebody getting that many carries normally doesn't have a long career after that.
-
Yeah, I know this scenario might not happen. But it might, particularly with games against several weaker teams coming up after Pittsburgh, and if so, why not rest your star players?
Because Pittsburgh's remaining schedule is dramatically easier than ours....and even if the Bengals win this week there won't be very much margin for error.
So you're saying that if we're up 35-3 on some team at the start of the fourth quarter, we shouldn't start bringing in some back ups to keep from risking our starters to injury?
-
Who gives a s**t, if he gives the team the best chance of winning, keep handing him the ball. I doubt Ced will complain if the team is winning. Careers are short anyway, some end up being shorter than others. Does he want a Fred Taylor 13 yr career of obscurity or a chance at tangible success? We all know the answer to that.
The Vikes are going to ride AD for maybe the next 5 yrs, if he last even that without a serious injury. They'll then move on, and if in those 5 yrs everyone involved has a ring, you'll hear few complaints.
I'm all for giving him the ball if we keep winning, but I do not discount the fact that doing so might shorten his career.
-
That's a really great argument in response to something I didn't say. I said the TOP 10 LIST, which is the following:
Most rushing attempts in a season, All-Time
416 Larry Johnson (2006)
410 Jamal Anderson (1998)
407 James Wilder (1984)
404 Eric Dickerson (1986)
403 Eddie George (2000)
397 Gerald Riggs (1985)
393 Terrell Davis (1998)
392 Ricky Williams (2003)
390 Eric Dickerson (1983)
390 Barry Foster (1992)
The only player you mentioned on that list is Williams (2003). But you say that if not for the pot he would still be the starter. Look at his rushing average though, from '02 to '03. He went for 383 carries in '02 for 4.8ypc. In 03' he had 392 for a 3.5ypc.
You could also make the argument that Terrell Davis would've kept on going after '98 except for his knee injury. I would argue that all the wear and tear on his knees kept it from healing properly. Lots of people come back after torn ligaments and still have productive careers.
Eric Dickerson appears to be the only one on that last to continue to be able to carry a load like that after having multiple 370+ carry seasons. Gerald Riggs was able to do one more and then didn't do it again.
I'm not saying this will happen to Ced, but the numbers appear to tell a different story. But like I said, if it gets us to the Superbowl then do it.
My argument still holds weight. You're saying that a back never plays well again after having a heavy workload. I proved that since 2002 that certainly hasn't been true.
Even your TOP 10 LIST argument is wrong.
Terrell Davis and Jamal Anderson are the same story. Even happened the same year. ACL tears are a virtual death sentence for a RB, especially prior to 2000. And almost without exception, the RB isn't as productive after the injury. It at the very least is far greater evidence than the "getting too many carries" factor. RBs after ACL injury - You'll also notice that Jamal Anderson did manage to have another 1,000 yard season after getting all of those carries.
-Ricky had an amazing year in '02. We was still one of the best in the NFL in '03... and is still clearly a very productive RB 6 years later.
-Larry Johnson was always only good because of the O-Line (see Priest Holmes prior to him).
-James Wilder had 1,300 yards and 10 TD's after his '84 campaign.
-Dickerson is on that top 10 list twice... in '83 and '86. He managed 3 more 1,000 yard seasons after '86, including a league leading 1,600 yard season in '88.
-Riggs carried the ball over 350 times the year before his 397 carry season, and carried 347 times the year after amassing over 1,300 yards and 9 TDs.
-Barry Foster was a 1 year wonder who had chronic injuries even before his 1992 season.
-Eddie George had two 1,000 yard seasons after 2000.
All of that to say... You're wrong. The only backs that were "never the same" were the ones that suffered injuries. RB's don't have long shelf lives in the NFL period. That isn't something that is unique to the one's who carry the ball a lot.
First of all, opinions are never wrong. You have yours and I have mine. Secondly, getting 1000 yards is hardly a big deal when your YPC sucks ass. Everyone of those backs declined after their high carry season except for Dickerson (who seems to be the exception to the rule, which I mentioned in my previous post.
Eddie George was able to get 2 1000 yards seasons after 2000 but you know damn well he wasn't the same back he was before 2000. George was a game breaker before that year and he wasn't afterward. And tell me what happened to Riggs after 3 years of toting the ball like that? Or James Wilder after doing it for two? Their production was WAY down.
Ricky Williams is doing good now, but until last year he hadn't really played that much since 2003. He was out for two years, played as a back up in '05, was out for all of '06 and most '07. He's had plenty of rest since his 2003 campaign.
The fact is that most guys don't last long carrying the ball that many times. You yourself have even posted here saying to give Ced as many carries as you can this year and next and then let him go. Why do that if the number of carries he gets won't hurt him? He'll be 28 when his contract is up and most RB's are productive until they're 30 or so.
-
What surprised me the most about that list was the number of RBs on that list whose team appeared in the Super Bowl in the same year of their alleged abuse.
I also wouldn't want to go to the trouble of looking this up... but it would be my guess that all but 2 or 3 on that list led their team to the playoffs in the same year they had so many carries.
I'm just saying...
You're right, most of those teams did go to the playoffs. Also, each one of those running backs on the top 10 list were never the same after that season. I want to get to the Superbowl as badly as anyone here, but I also don't want Ced to be a one year wonder here. But I guess if I had to choose, I'd take the Superbowl and I imagine Ced would, too.
That's a bit of an overstatement.
-Ricky Williams did it two years in a row, and would still be the starter if he weren't a pothead.
-Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson did it last year. Yeah... they suck this year.
-LT did it in 2002. I forget, was that his last productive season?
-Rudi did it in '04... the year before they went 11-5 with him as their bellcow.
In fact... the only recent examples you can point to of players never being the same (Alexander, Jamal Lewis, Curtis Martin) were already old and toward the end of their careers.
Nah... Use Benson in whatever fashion is needed to win now. Do it again next year too. If at the end of that season he has 900 carries in 2 years and his legs fall off - well, he's a FA after that.
That's a really great argument in response to something I didn't say. I said the TOP 10 LIST, which is the following:
Most rushing attempts in a season, All-Time
416 Larry Johnson (2006)
410 Jamal Anderson (1998)
407 James Wilder (1984)
404 Eric Dickerson (1986)
403 Eddie George (2000)
397 Gerald Riggs (1985)
393 Terrell Davis (1998)
392 Ricky Williams (2003)
390 Eric Dickerson (1983)
390 Barry Foster (1992)
The only player you mentioned on that list is Williams (2003). But you say that if not for the pot he would still be the starter. Look at his rushing average though, from '02 to '03. He went for 383 carries in '02 for 4.8ypc. In 03' he had 392 for a 3.5ypc.
You could also make the argument that Terrell Davis would've kept on going after '98 except for his knee injury. I would argue that all the wear and tear on his knees kept it from healing properly. Lots of people come back after torn ligaments and still have productive careers.
Eric Dickerson appears to be the only one on that last to continue to be able to carry a load like that after having multiple 370+ carry seasons. Gerald Riggs was able to do one more and then didn't do it again.
I'm not saying this will happen to Ced, but the numbers appear to tell a different story. But like I said, if it gets us to the Superbowl then do it.
-
You know, with all these avatar changes for regular posters of late, theres one more avatar change that really, really needs to occur
Mr "TJ Jackson" - I'm pointin' at you, dude
-
Lance posted some alarming stats as well:
Carrying a heavy loadAt the midway point of the season Cedric Benson has 198 carries for 837 yards.
He's averaging 4.2 yards per carry and 104.6 yards per game.
At his current pace Benson would carry 396 times for 1674 yards.
396 carries would rank 6th most attempts in a season in NFL history.
He leads the NFL in carries by 33 carries. (Stephen Jackson, Rams, 165)
His career high for carries in a season is 214 (2008)
Most rushing attempts since 2002:
416 Larry Johnson (2006)
392 Ricky Williams (2003)
387 Jamal Lewis (2003)
383 Ricky Williams (2002)
376 Michael Turner (2008)
372 LaDainian Tomlinson (2002)
371 Curtis Martin (2004)
370 Shaun Alexander (2005)
363 Adrian Peterson (2008)
361 Rudi Johnson (2004)
360 Edgerrin James (2005)
Most rushing attempts in a season, All-Time
416 Larry Johnson (2006)
410 Jamal Anderson (1998)
407 James Wilder (1984)
404 Eric Dickerson (1986)
403 Eddie George (2000)
397 Gerald Riggs (1985)
393 Terrell Davis (1998)
392 Ricky Williams (2003)
390 Eric Dickerson (1983)
390 Barry Foster (1992)
Here's to hoping they work Scott and Leonard in more from now on. If they can't stay healthy, find someone else.
What surprised me the most about that list was the number of RBs on that list whose team appeared in the Super Bowl in the same year of their alleged abuse.
I also wouldn't want to go to the trouble of looking this up... but it would be my guess that all but 2 or 3 on that list led their team to the playoffs in the same year they had so many carries.
I'm just saying...
You're right, most of those teams did go to the playoffs. Also, each one of those running backs on the top 10 list were never the same after that season. I want to get to the Superbowl as badly as anyone here, but I also don't want Ced to be a one year wonder here. But I guess if I had to choose, I'd take the Superbowl and I imagine Ced would, too.
-
/>http://www.wlwt.com/news/21575875/detail.htmlFor those who follow the link...check out the story on the same webpage about the high school kid being suspended because of his Bengal related haircut.
That's a little extreme, I think. I don't know what to think about these schools anymore.
-
You know, with all these name changes for regular posters of late, theres one more name change that really, really needs to occur
Mr "TheDsucks" - I'm pointin' at you, dude
Agreed. That moniker has lost it's meaning.
-
[A little off-topic, but if you go here http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/ you get a look at the new stadium design. Check out the earthen bank built up around the stadium. Think of the structural steel and concrete you save with this design. Just lay your seating in the earthen bowl. PS - This Roski guy must have a pipeline of money flowing to the California Legislature, because they passed a law exempting his stadium from their environmental laws.
Looks more like they are taking the top of a hill off and placing the stadium down inside the carved out remains of said hill.
They are. It reduces that amount of material needed to construct the stadium. Not a bad idea.
-
Speaking of simple names for the defense, there's one and it comes with a catchy song as well.
We're not gonna take it? Twisted Sister?
-
I agree with you, I was just saying they tried in the Bears game and it backfired on them. At least, as far as Ced goes it did.
-
the Bengals haven't won anything yet.
You take it one game at a time, sweetie
You win one game at a time (feels like that could be a old TV sitcom title, eh?)
They've won 6 of them, in fact
They could have rested him vs Chicago, but there was the whole "I wanna kick my old team in the teeth a few more times" thing going on, plus the possibility of a 200 yard game, so he stayed in. But they could have taken him out, just as they did Carson.
TJ, Leonard was inactive that game. They took Ced out with 9 minutes to go. Then Scott and JJ got hurt and Ced was the only active RB on the sideline, so he had to go back in.
I think they're aware of the issue. Marvin said Monday that the reason Scott didn't play is because he wasn't part of the game plan because they didn't know if he'd be available to play.
-
As to the article itself, I am having a hard time thinking of a more useless, ineffective "protest" than sitting down late. They still bought the tickets. They still are going to the game. They're probably buying a wiener while they're standing there waiting to hear the kickoff so they can go sit down and watch their team get whacked yet again. Does that send a message to ownership?
Obviously it does because Lerner has already had a face to face meeting with the two season ticket holders responsible for organizing the protest.
So what?
Imagine if the son of Paul agreed to meet for two or three hours with MomsLikeMe and Kid Steakhouse. What, if anything, do you think would be accomplished by such a meeting?
I didn't say anything would be accomplished, but the mere threat of their "protest" got them a meeting with Lerner and makes them think it did. There GM has been fired and now every other story I read is about Lerner saying he's going to hire a football "czar".
All of that could or could not be related to the "protest" and I have no idea whether it is or isn't.
As for SoP, WDR could take Katie hostage and he wouldn't meet with any of them. He knows no matter what he does he's going to get his money which is obviously something the Lerner hasn't learned yet.
-
I'd still like to see Chad and Carson hook up on a couple of bombs, ala 2005. They've only been able to do that once this year. Every other time he's missed. It seems like Palmer's lost a bit of his down field accuracy.
What say you now, Ray Lewis?
in Cincinnati Bengals
Posted
To be quite honest, I don't really know. I know that they tried once against the Ravens and it was under thrown and nearly picked off. I don't have the luxury of DVR either, so I can't go back and look at the other games.