Cedric Bensons Carries

[derekshank]

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.

[TJJackson]

I'm more concerned about him getting injured in the later weeks and being entirely unavailable for the (increasingly probable) playoffs at all

My point is that we can still win games AND give him plenty of work AND rest him when a W is well in hand in any given game

[redsbengalsbucks]

I'm more concerned about him getting injured in the later weeks and being entirely unavailable for the (increasingly probable) playoffs at all

My point is that we can still win games AND give him plenty of work AND rest him when a W is well in hand in any given game

I think the big reason for his inflated attempt #'s are that the other backs have been dinged or just learning early on. The Bears game would have been mop up duty for either Scott and/or Leonard but both were hurt. Even JJ was banged up and couldnt relieve an obviously tired Benson at the end of the game.

If healthy from now on I would expect to see more of both backup RB's touching the ball, even if infrequently, to give Ced a breather from time to time.

I would like to see Scott get at least 5-8 touches a game and Leonard just needs to keep getting those important first downs when called upon.

[derekshank]

My point is that we can still win games AND give him plenty of work AND rest him when a W is well in hand in any given game

You're probably right.

That said, Benson doesn't appear to be fragile, and doesn't have a history of nagging injuries.

Also, so far this season there has only been 1 game where the Bengals had a significant lead in the 4th quarter... and that was the Bears game.

The Ravens game was only a 10 point lead, and very easily could have been a 7 point lead. Certainly not the type of lead that you start benching your starters for.

I'd also like to see some of Bernard Scott as well, simply because he's fun to watch. I'm also a big fan of seeing Leonard out there on 3rd downs... so as long as they are both healthy, I think the 30+ carry days will be kept to a minimum.

But Benson is getting the job done, and I don't see any real evidence that he needs to be rested. The only reason you start taking carries away from him is if the scheme calls for it. But that's just my opinion.

The Bengals have a few games left on the schedule that ought to be blowouts. If they indeed are, I'm fine with benching him, Palmer, and any other significant starter you don't want injured in meaningless play.

[Ickey44]

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.

[HoTbOy]

I don't have a problem with the carries right now, because we needed them, the only thing is an injury would kill us like LTomlinson's injury to San Diego...Give some more carries to JJohnson during the game he can run the ball as a HB...I wouldn't rest him until we have something clinched like a wild card/division title, the other RB's just have to step up...

[derekshank]

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. He 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.

[Ickey44]

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.

[Pidge]

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.

[HairOnFire]

I am not explaining myself well

True enough, but you're doing the very best you can, right?

I should not have mentioned the Chicago game.....

Agreed, mostly because Benson's 37 carries in that game weren't part of some poorly though out master plan as you implied.

so, forget the Chicago game, and instead -- consider an upcoming game....

Flip it. Since this is a thread for the complainers to worry and whine about Benson being used too often....tell us in which game(s) he was improperly used?

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.

[Ickey44]

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.

[Ickey44]

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?

[derekshank]

Ickey... it's ok to be wrong. It happens to the best of us. The best thing you can do is admit it and walk away rather than playing semantic games to try to show yourself right.

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.

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.

But this is a silly argument that is going nowhere. 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.

So, what are we arguing about? Eddie George and Ricky Williams? Please.

[derekshank]

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.

[Ickey44]

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.

[derekshank]

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?

[Ickey44]

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.

[kingwilly]

I think this is the basic undercurrent to this discussion.

We all know that the Bengals have generally had pretty good RB's (Essex, Pete Johnson, Archie, Ickey, James Brooks, Green, Hearst, Dillon, Rudi...) and the desire is to get the "most" out of them. By "most", it can generally mean most production (carries, yardage and avg), most TD's, most benefit. And because of recent years watching an over-ripe Rudi and an underwhelming Perry try to run (if it can be called running), we are giddy about our new shiny RB, and don't want to break him too quick, even if by accident, like KiJana or Irons.

Unlike most of the last 20 years, this team is showing it is among the elite of the NFL and could be a big factor in the post-season, assuming they do get there. Getting there WILL require getting the "most" out of Benson, and giving him as many carries as it takes to make it to the playoffs. Everyone can agree Benson appears very durable, and given his history of running at Texas, 326 carries in 10 games, he can handle the workload. I think we can all also agree that the Bengals have expressed the thought that spelling Benson with Leonard and Scott is planned but has not always been do-able for one reason or another. Essentially, when they can spell benson, they will.

Over-protecting the "shiny RB" is contrary to his purpose. He is a blunt force offensive weapon. Kind of like those fossil fuelhaters who buy a Hummer and then complain about parking it at the mall, never taking it off-road. If the goal is to win and make the playoffs, Benson will probably need to carry over 350 times and will end up getting his share of dings and scratches. Just the way it is.

It is the responsibily of the coaches to prevent OVER-using him and that is a matter of management, something this staff is not well noted for. Reaching goal 1, playoffs, could mean little if they arrive at the cost of using up Benson, though his red-line is very high. Finding that limit or red-line is dicey and most stats point more to a cumulative effect, rather than short-term burn out but it does seem irresponsible to keep red-lining Benson, when the greater goal has not been achieved but a short-term goal (winning a game) has.

The only game that he "coulda-shoulda" sat down in was Chicago, and we all have heard about Scott and JJ and what happened. So, given the coaches realize this, and say as much, it makes me feel better about reaching the long term goal with gas in Benson's tank. It also makes me more confident in Benson when he CAN take those snaps, week in-week out, and not show any effects (that we know of). Benson also has a role in this, as a professional, taking care of himself and managing his game, and he is showing he does that well.

Overall, if we see Benson running mid 4th quarter against OAK, KC or CLE, and the team is ahead by 10 or more, this may merit more discussion. At the halfway point, I am satisfied with what has taken place, as well as the general message coming from PBS about Bensons, his # of carries and the offensive scheme.

[HairOnFire]

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?

Where have I even hinted at anything like that?

Frankly, I'm all for reducing Benson's workload if future circumstances permit it, but IMHO those circumstances haven't existed up to this point. And it's that last point that most of you hand wringers are conveniently forgetting.

[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.

[derekshank]

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.

[Ickey44]

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.

[derekshank]

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.

[kingwilly]

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?

Where have I even hinted at anything like that?

Frankly, I'm all for reducing Benson's workload if future circumstances permit it, but IMHO those circumstances haven't existed up to this point. And it's that last point that most of you hand wringers are conveniently forgetting.

The only game where it would have been warranted, so far, is against Chicago, and they did nort have anyone healthy to spell Benson.

But it is not only when ahead 35-3 that is should be employed. They do need to mix in Leonard and Scott just a bit more. It creates mis-matches and when paried with different formations, will keep the opposing Defense guessing. This is the one area that Brat has really done well <hard to type that, damn hard> doing so this year.

Preserve Benson when the game is WELL in hand, and force opposing D's to wonder WTF is next.

Benson should get between 25-30 carries, Scott and Leonard should get 10-12 snaps between them (Pass or run).

[Ickey44]

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.