ntpou Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 I hope he lets Rudi be the guy & I mean give him the ball 25 times a game and spell him for rests or change of pace back with perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyline Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 I hope he lets Rudi be the guy & I mean give him the ball 25 times a game and spell him for rests or change of pace back with perry i think that will be the case, unless every time perry touches the ball he runs for 5 yards, and rudi begins struggling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincykent Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 I think Perry will be the third down back, and will spell Rudi on long drives or after a long run to catch his breath. I think Rudi will get 60-70% of the carries, with the rest split between Jeremi Johnson and Perry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntpou Posted May 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 That sounds good to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 I say open competition during training camp. Who ever does the essentials better, should be the starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brew Man Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 Im wondering if he will vulture TDs from Rudi..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 who cares, as long as someone gets in the gd endzone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BENGALTHEM Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 RUDI!! RUDI!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black'n'Orange Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 I say open competition during training camp. Who ever does the essentials better, should be the starter. I agree. If Perry has the talent and strength that I think he does, it could be real interesting. :player: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 I myself think a two back backfield is the way to go this season. The reason is the extra protection in picking up blitzes that will be coming at Palmer. He will need that extra second or two this first season as a starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 I myself think a two back backfield is the way to go this season. The reason is the extra protection in picking up blitzes that will be coming at Palmer. He will need that extra second or two this first season as a starter. Well, I'd agree, but instead of having both Rudi and Perry back there, we'd use Jeremi Johnson more because he's designed to be a blocking back. The other two primarily work on rushing the ball and receiving; to feature backs, blocking is third in priority. For Jeremi, it's no. 1.I think it's all mute anyway, I really believe the Bengals will use 3-4 WR sets; we have the talent at WR to do this now more than ever causing only one back in the backfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 The Bengals could use one back at a time.Keeping a fresh RB in, with the idea of wearing the other team's DL down.They are both work horses BTW. Perry carried the ball 51 times against Michigan State and ,if I am not mistaken, Rudi holds the Bengal's record with like 41 carries in one game.But they are really different Types of RBs and Perry is also a receiving threat.Coach Anderson has commented on how they could compliment one another. (hopefully along the lines of Brooks & Woods)So don't be surprised if we see some two back sets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 Well, I'd agree, but instead of having both Rudi and Perry back there, we'd use Jeremi Johnson more because he's designed to be a blocking back. The other two primarily work on rushing the ball and receiving; to feature backs, blocking is third in priority. For Jeremi, it's no. 1.I think it's all mute anyway, I really believe the Bengals will use 3-4 WR sets; we have the talent at WR to do this now more than ever causing only one back in the backfield. one of the nice things about JJ is that he is a threat to catch the ball as well, so if him and Perry are in the backfield it's two targets that the opposing D have to worry about....With our WR corp, I can see 3 WR, 2 RB sets cause that will spread the D and play havoc, cause there would be 5 legit recieving threats, plus the danger of running the ball, cause the FB is in, and PW can run block with the best of them....(Who needs a TE when we have the smallest TE in the league with P-Dub? )I can really see our offense causing serious headaches for Defenses.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 Well, I'd agree, but instead of having both Rudi and Perry back there, we'd use Jeremi Johnson more because he's designed to be a blocking back. The other two primarily work on rushing the ball and receiving; to feature backs, blocking is third in priority. For Jeremi, it's no. 1.I think it's all mute anyway, I really believe the Bengals will use 3-4 WR sets; we have the talent at WR to do this now more than ever causing only one back in the backfield.one of the nice things about JJ is that he is a threat to catch the ball as well, so if him and Perry are in the backfield it's two targets that the opposing D have to worry about....With our WR corp, I can see 3 WR, 2 RB sets cause that will spread the D and play havoc, cause there would be 5 legit recieving threats, plus the danger of running the ball, cause the FB is in, and PW can run block with the best of them....(Who needs a TE when we have the smallest TE in the league with P-Dub? )I can really see our offense causing serious headaches for Defenses....I agree. Our TEs are not good. Put in our three best WRs and two best backs and we have a scoring machine on our hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 The Bengals could use one back at a time.Keeping a fresh RB in, with the idea of wearing the other team's DL down.They are both work horses BTW. Perry carried the ball 51 times against Michigan State and ,if I am not mistaken, Rudi holds the Bengal's record with like 41 carries in one game. This is good in theory, but it takes away the primary reason why Palmer is the starting QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 A strong running game doesn't take away from having Palmer as the starting QB.It should in fact take a lot of the pressure off of him as he adjusts to the the pro game.Long term, I think you will find that a balanced offence, offers the greatest chance of consistant sucess in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningpoint Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 why do i think Perry is a mix between Clinton Portis and Ladanian Tomlinson?I'm just sayin look out for perry when he carries that ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 The Bengals could use one back at a time.Keeping a fresh RB in, with the idea of wearing the other team's DL down.They are both work horses BTW. Perry carried the ball 51 times against Michigan State and ,if I am not mistaken, Rudi holds the Bengal's record with like 41 carries in one game.But they are really different Types of RBs and Perry is also a receiving threat.Coach Anderson has commented on how they could compliment one another. (hopefully along the lines of Brooks & Woods)So don't be surprised if we see some two back sets. As we have seen in the NFL (look at the Kansas City Chefs-pre-Priest), the "Running back by committee" thing doesn't work.Since the NFL has de-valued the Fullback position (which I think is a major mistake), you see a whole lot of teams going with one back sets.Stick with Rudi, and give breathers with JJ, Perry, or Hicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardG Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 As we have seen in the NFL (look at the Kansas City Chefs-pre-Priest), the "Running back by committee" thing doesn't work.It worked for the Bengals in 1988.The reason most "running back by committee" sets don't work is because all the runners are crappy, or the offensive line is crappy. Look at Carolina last year - Foster and Davis really lent a lot of flexibility to the Panther offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarian Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 As we have seen in the NFL (look at the Kansas City Chefs-pre-Priest), the "Running back by committee" thing doesn't work.It worked for the Bengals in 1988.The reason most "running back by committee" sets don't work is because all the runners are crappy, or the offensive line is crappy. Look at Carolina last year - Foster and Davis really lent a lot of flexibility to the Panther offense. No, no, no--Stephen Davis WAS the only RB in Carolina's Offense last year. Foster's only purpose was giving Davis BREATHERS or whenever Davis was hurt.Davis is a stud. Foster is his backup--that's all.And you're talking about the "Bengals" as in 1988. THE GAME HAS MAJORLY CHANGED SINCE THEN.The time of Ickey Woods and James Brooks is ancient history in NFL Years, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardG Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 Heh, sorry guy, but Deshaun Foster and Davis were used as a "committee" at times last season (certainly not at the beginning of the season, but certainly by the end), especially the postseason. You aren't thinking about this the right way - the trick is not to try and split carries between the two backs, but to get the maximum production by going with whomever is running the strongest or whomever matches up the best against the other team. For example, if a team is weak on defense and we can run over them, we go with Rudi. If we need some more versatility, we may go with Perry. That is exactly what Carolina did in the postseason. Furthermore, having two guys reduces the wear and tear on both.Minnesota was the epitome of a running back by committee, but they finished 4th in the NFL in rushing last year. San Francisco had a committee with Hearst and Barlow, and they finished 5th. The Eagles had a committeee, and they finished 9th. So, clearly running by committee can be successful in the NFL.Also, I'm not sure what you think has changed in the game since 1988, other than the salary cap has made having two good runners a luxury. Running the football is running the football, and it doesn't matter if you have one or two running backs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted May 9, 2004 Report Share Posted May 9, 2004 And you're talking about the "Bengals" as in 1988. THE GAME HAS MAJORLY CHANGED SINCE THEN.The time of Ickey Woods and James Brooks is ancient history in NFL Years, dude. Only because the running game has been marginallized. If you look at the top running backs in the league, almost none of them made the playoffs. But if you look at say the Eagles who very sucessfully run a comittee at running back, or even the Patriots (though their comittee sucked), most of the top teams have a feautre back, and a back that is very close at #2. The days of one back getting all the carries and making a difference is over and teams will need two backs simply to keep defenses guessing, that's why last year the two backs didn't work, with Dillon in, you knew they were gonna run it up the gut, or if Rudi is in, you're gonna run it up the gut. This year there is a real difference between Rudi and Perry, that is what makes the two backs work well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.