Scouts, Inc....

[kingwilly]

I post this only to note the amazing ineptitude of so-called "journalists". Some of this is spot-on, however, the "weakness" of this team is nowhere near the RB position. RB is probably one of the strongest positions. What team are they watching?

SCOUTS INC.'S ANALYSIS

Strengths

Run defense: Somewhat amazingly and extremely under the radar, this very well could be the strongest aspect of the entire Bengals team, and it should only be better from a year ago.

Weapons: There are a few really talented receivers in Cincinnati. Of course, there are questions surrounding each player, but the upside here is tremendous. If Chad Ochocinco can be the player he was before last season, everyone will benefit.

Carson Palmer: This offense was crippled last season, and a huge reason for that was the lack of an upper-echelon quarterback. With Palmer back in the fold, the Bengals will not have to hide the most important position on the field. Instead, it should be a great strength, if health is not a problem.

Weaknesses

Center: The Bengals face AFC North nose tackles Haloti Ngata, Casey Hampton and Shaun Rogers each twice a year. Being weak at center is a major problem. That is especially true when RB Cedric Benson -- an interior runner -- is the primary ball carrier.

Pass rush: The Bengals could be improved in this department, but they were flat-out terrible in their ability to get to quarterbacks (17 sacks, tied with Cleveland for 30th overall) a year ago.

Running back: Benson played well at the end of '08, but trusting him as the primary ball carrier is worrisome. The other options on the roster are either unproven or less than dynamic. Few teams are in such bad shape at running back.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I thought the same thing when I saw it. What they say is true in the details - all the guys besides Benson are unproven as starters, or not full-time starter material (imagine Dorsey getting 25 carries a game and falling apart by wk 3!) But they have 4 quality guys, and these days going with quantity at RB ain't a bad strategy. Benson looked good last year, the new kid looks like the real deal, and Dorsey/Leonard should be counted on when necessary. I can easily think of teams with worse situations.

This is symptomatic of national press trying to cover teams in detail - they miss the small stuff and focus too much on big names. If you do that, you'll always be a step behind.

[princeton]

Bengals traded for a back, drafted a back, are keeping four plus another on the PS. they're not acting as if they believe that there isn't a potential problem. won't surprise me at all if we're drafting a RB no. 1 next year.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Bengals traded for a back, drafted a back, are keeping four plus another on the PS. they're not acting as if they believe that there isn't a potential problem. won't surprise me at all if we're drafting a RB no. 1 next year.

My impression wasn't that they kept 4 RB out of desperation, but because the depth at RB was so much better than that at FB (where they kept one instead of two). They basically were in the position of losing DeDe Dorsey (or Brian Leonard) to keep Chris Pressley, and the talent difference there is huge.

I hope they don't take an RB in the first unless he's a very good pass catcher. Nothing more overrated than a between-the-tackles RB.

[Walrus]

I actually pretty much agree with what they have to say about the RBs. Benson hasn't REALLY proven himself yet -- and the other 3 look good in practice/preseason but who knows what we'll get when the bullets start flying. I will say, I'm more comfortable w/ the FB situation -- that our blocking will improve w/ a "real" FB on the 53-man roster and another stashed on the PS. Also, if Smith ever works his a$$ into playing shape, that will likely give the running game a good shot in the arm. And Cook looks to be an improvement on Ghiaciuc. Otherwise, though, I don't feel a whole lot better about our RBs going into this season than I did last year when Chris Perry was coming off a pretty solid preseason.

[Ickey44]

Otherwise, though, I don't feel a whole lot better about our RBs going into this season than I did last year when Chris Perry was coming off a pretty solid preseason.

True, Perry did look pretty good last preseason. I think I'm more confident with the running game this year though because the line is a whole lot better than it was last year. It couldn't have gotten much worse, so that's not saying a whole lot, but I think once they get some more time together they'll really start doing well.

[princeton]

O-line is highly questionable, IMO. no true LT, three highly inexperienced players.

[ArmyBengal]

The o-line still has to be the major concern. While I think they will be better, how much is the real question.

As for next draft, the Bengals have been linked to Spiller from Clemson on a bunch of sites, but I'm not sold on a RB in the 1st...

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

1st round they'll go for non-QB best player, if history's any guide. In an ideal situation, we'd get a DE who doesn't suck. And even with Andre, they still need OL help.

[derekshank]

I have my doubts about the running game too. But it's not so much about the RBs on the roster. The O-line will really have to improve quickly to get a good running game going. Otherwise, Palmer's going to have to throw the ball more than Warner did last year.

The Bengals actually have pretty good depth at RB, but I feel like none of them are high ceiling type guys. The Bengals lack a top tier RB. That's not a good thing, but the bonus is that if there are injuries, the depth can step up without a notable decline in talent.

How's that for glass half full?

[ArmyBengal]

Honestly, I think the #1 pick next year will be on defense again and the 2nd rounder on the o-line. Guard maybe...

[Stripes]

I agree with scouts.inc. We have four solid backups, so technically we could call it "deep". None of the four looks like a consistently productive starter though.

[membengal]

Scouts Inc. is premature in its assessment. Scott is a complete unknown, to pretty much all of us. He COULD be a bellcow back, for all anyone knows. Benson has never been THE man, and was drafted to BE a bellcow back. He has it in him.

I like Scouts, but they are sometimes too reactive.

A year ago, I am certain, they were slagging on the Bengals run D, now they call it a strength...

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I agree with scouts.inc. We have four solid backups, so technically we could call it "deep". None of the four looks like a consistently productive starter though.

I'm OK with that. Outside of pass-catchers, RBs are usually overrated and too expensive. OLs generally make the back. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Shaun Alexander.

I'll take decent-to-good RBs and a great OL. It's worked for Denver for years.

[kingwilly]

I agree with scouts.inc. We have four solid backups, so technically we could call it "deep". None of the four looks like a consistently productive starter though.

I'm OK with that. Outside of pass-catchers, RBs are usually overrated and too expensive. OLs generally make the back. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Shaun Alexander Rudi Johnson.

I'll take decent-to-good RBs and a great OL. It's worked for Denver for years.

there, fixed that for you.

I think we have some very, very good talent at RB. As good of talent as I think I can ever recall seeing in stripes.

[Walrus]

I agree with scouts.inc. We have four solid backups, so technically we could call it "deep". None of the four looks like a consistently productive starter though.

I'm OK with that. Outside of pass-catchers, RBs are usually overrated and too expensive. OLs generally make the back. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Shaun Alexander Rudi Johnson.

I'll take decent-to-good RBs and a great OL. It's worked for Denver for years.

there, fixed that for you.

I think we have some very, very good talent at RB. As good of talent as I think I can ever recall seeing in stripes.

In terms of depth of raw talent, I might agree. And hopefully it pans out in real games. Unfortunately, NONE of these guys is a proven NFL back. Benson and Leonard are borderline busts. DeDe has proven to be fragile. Scott is a (very exciting) 6th round rookie. I can't blame anyone for looking at that backfield and seeing it as a potential liability -- esp behind a questionable line. I'd take the Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry backfield of '05 in terms of talent over this one until these guys prove themselves.

[Ickey44]

I agree with scouts.inc. We have four solid backups, so technically we could call it "deep". None of the four looks like a consistently productive starter though.

I'm OK with that. Outside of pass-catchers, RBs are usually overrated and too expensive. OLs generally make the back. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Shaun Alexander Rudi Johnson.

I'll take decent-to-good RBs and a great OL. It's worked for Denver for years.

there, fixed that for you.

I think we have some very, very good talent at RB. As good of talent as I think I can ever recall seeing in stripes.

In terms of depth of raw talent, I might agree. And hopefully it pans out in real games. Unfortunately, NONE of these guys is a proven NFL back. Benson and Leonard are borderline busts. DeDe has proven to be fragile. Scott is a (very exciting) 6th round rookie. I can't blame anyone for looking at that backfield and seeing it as a potential liability -- esp behind a questionable line. I'd take the Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry backfield of '05 in terms of talent over this one until these guys prove themselves.

Rudi and Perry of '05 were also running behind arguably the best oline the Bengals ever assembled.

[derekshank]

Rudi never had top end speed and didn't break 50 yard TD runs like a lot of top tier RBs... but while in his prime was the most difficult man to tackle in the entire NFL. Sure, that only lasted about 2 or 3 years, but you've got to give credit where it is due. If the Bengals been starting a mediocre RB like Lamont Jordan instead of Rudi, they likely would not have been as successful in '05.