cincyhokie Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 Maybe give Ced a few plays eh if he's good to go? Just to keep him humming along but hopefully the game goes well enough to move Scott in for the majority of carries and also a delicious side helping of Leonard would be nice.You have to think that Scott gets a good portion of the carries from here on out. Most teams have a change of pace back and he is exactly that. He got around the corner today often and you could tell the Steelers were not ready for him.Benson getting hurt and allowing Scott to get carries may have been a reason the Bengals won. Nothing against Benson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 I don't get it. Usually injuries worry me, but this team seems to shrug them off and keep on keeping on. I'm bewildered, astounded, not to mention totally happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 *deleted* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted November 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 21 carries 119 yards and 3 receptions for 32 yards vs raidersniiiiiceGood depth building here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Yep, he had a damn good day. Invaluable experience and he's earned himself some more carries, Benson or no Benson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 21 carries 119 yards and 3 receptions for 32 yards vs raidersniiiiiceGood depth building hereYeah, too bad Brat couldn't do anything to counter the blitz once Scott got them in the red zone all those times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwillycuse Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Yeah - Im convinced now that we have a good one.Now get Andre and Coffman in there and we have the best draft ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 Come on Brat...Lets try some creativity. (Im starting to believe he doesn't know how to use a TE like Coffman either)I lost my faith in Brat having any creativity a long time ago. He's a decent enough OC, but when people have him figured out and are stopping what he's trying to do he can't answer. He doesn't adjust or doesn't know how to. I really think this offense would be better off with someone else calling the plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted November 24, 2009 Report Share Posted November 24, 2009 i think the scott did a nice job. but to many times he got stopped at the line or tackled for a loss. i know the oline was a part of that. to me scott does not have the power you need in the redzone or to run between the tackles. he's good but not a true starter. that's the difference form him and ced. ced can grind out the tough yards, scott more often than not will get stuffed. when ced is in the game we do not struggle in the redzone like we did against the raiders. to me we need ced back asap, scott's a nice spot guy but ced is the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 i think the scott did a nice job. but to many times he got stopped at the line or tackled for a loss. i know the oline was a part of that. to me scott does not have the power you need in the redzone or to run between the tackles. he's good but not a true starter. that's the difference form him and ced. ced can grind out the tough yards, scott more often than not will get stuffed. when ced is in the game we do not struggle in the redzone like we did against the raiders. to me we need ced back asap, scott's a nice spot guy but ced is the man.Scott did alright. Of course he's not as powerful as Ced, but he didn't shy away from contact and got some extra yards after contact. The problem on all those runs for loss was the fact that the Raiders were there as soon as he got the hand off. Ced more than likely doesn't get out of those tackles either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted November 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 Hey everyone, make sure you vote for Bernard for rookie of the week/>http://www.nfl.com/partner?partnerType=rookiesHe was beaten out last week for this same honor following his big KR vs the Steelers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Maybe give Ced a few plays eh if he's good to go? Just to keep him humming along but hopefully the game goes well enough to move Scott in for the majority of carries and also a delicious side helping of Leonard would be nice.You have to think that Scott gets a good portion of the carries from here on out. Most teams have a change of pace back and he is exactly that. He got around the corner today often and you could tell the Steelers were not ready for him.Benson getting hurt and allowing Scott to get carries may have been a reason the Bengals won. Nothing against Benson.lol no way in hell,the reason we beat the stoolers is because of zimmer and our defense. not because scott played for benson are you serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 i think the scott did a nice job. but to many times he got stopped at the line or tackled for a loss. i know the oline was a part of that. to me scott does not have the power you need in the redzone or to run between the tackles. he's good but not a true starter. that's the difference form him and ced. ced can grind out the tough yards, scott more often than not will get stuffed. when ced is in the game we do not struggle in the redzone like we did against the raiders. to me we need ced back asap, scott's a nice spot guy but ced is the man.Scott did alright. Of course he's not as powerful as Ced, but he didn't shy away from contact and got some extra yards after contact. The problem on all those runs for loss was the fact that the Raiders were there as soon as he got the hand off. Ced more than likely doesn't get out of those tackles either.i really beleive if ced played we don't lose to the raiders. think about it. if ced played, scott not jj gets the carry the jj just dropped. then scott not caldwell is returning kick offs. also as for scott i really think what you see is it. the man is 26 years old. i don't think he is going to be much better than what we see. i like scott i think he is a very good change of pace back, but in now way shape or form is he anything near what ced is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 i really beleive if ced played we don't lose to the raiders. think about it. if ced played, scott not jj gets the carry the jj just dropped. then scott not caldwell is returning kick offs. also as for scott i really think what you see is it. the man is 26 years old. i don't think he is going to be much better than what we see. i like scott i think he is a very good change of pace back, but in now way shape or form is he anything near what ced is.I disagree with your opinion on Scott, because he was the main reason the Bengals were in position to score multiple times, but just didn't.That said, I agree with your earlier assessment. Without Benson, the team felt the need to make other arrangements to keep Scott rested, and nearly all of those arrangements resulted in bad things.Too bad LJ hadn't been around a bit longer. Maybe he would have been able to carry the ball 10-15 times instead of 2, and we'd be talking about what a close call that game was instead of pining over an inexplicable loss 4 days later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 i really beleive if ced played we don't lose to the raiders. think about it. if ced played, scott not jj gets the carry the jj just dropped. then scott not caldwell is returning kick offs. also as for scott i really think what you see is it. the man is 26 years old. i don't think he is going to be much better than what we see. i like scott i think he is a very good change of pace back, but in now way shape or form is he anything near what ced is.I disagree with your opinion on Scott, because he was the main reason the Bengals were in position to score multiple times, but just didn't.That said, I agree with your earlier assessment. Without Benson, the team felt the need to make other arrangements to keep Scott rested, and nearly all of those arrangements resulted in bad things.Too bad LJ hadn't been around a bit longer. Maybe he would have been able to carry the ball 10-15 times instead of 2, and we'd be talking about what a close call that game was instead of pining over an inexplicable loss 4 days later.i just think if ced was there, i really don't believe. we come away with only 3 points on 3 redzone trips. your right regardless, we just did not make it happen. now don't get me wrong about scott, i think he is going to be key to finishing the season with a strong run. even as much as i like benson, there is no way benson needs to carry the ball +25 times a game. i think that's the main reason for his injury. as for LJ he should have got a couple more carries, just on the success he has had against the raiders. 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.