Cedric Bensons Carries

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Ickey44]

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?

[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.

[HairOnFire]

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.

But Pittsburgh does have an easier schedule than the Bengals. It's a fact. And it's also a fact that the Bengals haven't won anything of note yet, and are currently tied with the defending champions. So am I not correct for pointing out how narrow the Bengals margin for error truly is? Or should I pretend this thing is salted away already, and it's time to start worrying about resting the starters? (In week 9 no less.)

And while we're on the subject of pretending, let me remind you that ALL of the hand wringing arguments being made in favor of reducing Benson's workload are based in the future on unlikely scenarios involving star players being needlessly wounded in imaginary blowouts by an uncaring coaching staff.

Simply put, from soup to nuts and from the local steakhouse all the way to Mexico.....it's all crap.

So save the questions about what should be done if and when the team goes up on some poor oppsing team to the tune of a 35-3 4th quarter score, because under those circumstances we all make the same logical choice. However, in the games already played this season can you give me a single example where Benson was misused?

And if you can't....then what the hell are you whining about?

[TJJackson]

Err, future games are not legitimate discussion topics?

Go ahead and close that topic about the upcoming Pittsburgh game and any thread talking about us in the playoffs, folks, Hair says we cant hand-wring - err whine - errrr post - about that which has not yet occurred.

Conjecture, predictions - I mean, this is a fan discussion board, we cant have any of that

C'mon folks :-)

That said, I call dibs on opening the

"We've just lost our star RB for the year because we played him unnecessarily in the 4th quarter in a blowout win, so what do we do now"

thread.

[membengal]

Hair's point stands, and you might as well yield, all of you. He's right.

The complaining in THIS very thread is about Benson's workload to date. Given the ONE chance they have had to back his carries off occurred in a game where literally he was the only healthy back on the roster come the 4th quarter, when, and at what point, should they have lightened Benson's load to date this season?

In fact, and I can pull the threads if need be, the one game where he was run less was the Houston game, which they lost, and plenty of people on this site complained that he did not get the ball enough in that game. Ironic, no? In fact, I wonder if some of those who so complained are not now on this thread complaining he has carried it too much to date.

In upcoming games, IF the Bengals get a nice late lead, AND the back-ups are not hurt, I am 100% sure that Benson will rest.

Panty-bunching in advance is just weird. And I echo hair's challenge to tell everyone specifically where Benson was improperly used to date so far this season.

[Ickey44]

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.

[HairOnFire]

Err, future games are not legitimate discussion topics?

Not at all. In fact, for those of you who can't keep track of the real facts relating to the games actually played (Chicago)it's probably the easier way to go.

...folks, Hair says we cant hand-wring - err whine - errrr post - about that which has not yet occurred.

Oh, you can write about that stuff all you want. But let's not kid ourselves. If you engage in empty speculation it's perfectly fair for others to point out how it's all....empty speculation.

[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.

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...

[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.

[derekshank]

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.

Fine... but it still addressed the point you were making. And that point was incorrect at best.

And again... remind me how I was a dick before you got s**tty?

[Ickey44]

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.

Fine... but it still addressed the point you were making. And that point was incorrect at best.

In your opinion. Not in mine. And that's where we should leave it.

[gregstephens]

Boys, boys. Things going so well for the team that we're just picking stupid fights with each other? Come on, guys. Kiss and make up.

[derekshank]

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.

Fine... but it still addressed the point you were making. And that point was incorrect at best.

In your opinion. Not in mine. And that's where we should leave it.

Fair enough. We'll leave it. Perhaps we can talk about it again sometime. You seem pretty emotional right now, so it's probably not productive.

[derekshank]

Boys, boys. Things going so well for the team that we're just picking stupid fights with each other? Come on, guys. Kiss and make up.

Nah. He chose to get s**tty with me because I disagreed with him. He took a difference of opinion as a personal attack... which is just sad.

I on the other hand decided to keep it going, because, hey... why not? The Bengals are winning. The going is good. Big week ahead, and a slow news day. It keeps me entertained.

[Ickey44]

Boys, boys. Things going so well for the team that we're just picking stupid fights with each other? Come on, guys. Kiss and make up.

Nah. He chose to get s**tty with me because I disagreed with him. He took a difference of opinion as a personal attack... which is just sad.

I on the other hand decided to keep it going, because, hey... why not? The Bengals are winning. The going is good. Big week ahead, and a slow news day. It keeps me entertained.

Yeah, cause I do that every time someone disagrees with me. It's totally unthinkable that you were an a**h*** first, right? Not the mighty Derek Shank? Why he's the nicest guy here!

Get over yourself, man. You aren't an authority on anything and people are allowed to have different opinions than you. I've always respected you as a poster, but your view isn't the only one and you can't make everyone see things your way.

[derekshank]

Boys, boys. Things going so well for the team that we're just picking stupid fights with each other? Come on, guys. Kiss and make up.

Nah. He chose to get s**tty with me because I disagreed with him. He took a difference of opinion as a personal attack... which is just sad.

I on the other hand decided to keep it going, because, hey... why not? The Bengals are winning. The going is good. Big week ahead, and a slow news day. It keeps me entertained.

Yeah, cause I do that every time someone disagrees with me. It's totally unthinkable that you were an a**h*** first, right? Not the mighty Derek Shank? Why he's the nicest guy here!

Get over yourself, man. You aren't an authority on anything and people are allowed to have different opinions than you. I've always respected you as a poster, but your view isn't the only one and you can't make everyone see things your way.

I don't need to get over myself, because I've never said any of those things.

And ask yourself, why have you respected me as a poster? Allow me to take two guesses...

1) I fact check myself before making absolute statements.

2) I never get s**tty with someone before they first get s**tty with me.

I've been here for nearly 5 years. I've had my run-ins with agreen, bearcat, and a handful of others who don't frequent the board anymore. But I never initiate the "dick" quality. I certainly have it in me to give it out... but without exception, I only give it to those who show me a disproportionate amount of disrespect for the situation at hand.

I don't usually see a need to be an a**h***. But I also possess a quality that I call "hypervigilance" that won't allow me to just let someone be a dick to me without recourse.

You think I was being "douchy" first. I wasn't. You may have interpreted it that way. I don't know why, because all I did was fact check your statement. But you felt the need to be a dick... and I returned the favor.

Frankly, I've enjoyed our afternoon together thoroughly, which only serves to prove that I don't take myself all that seriously. I come to this board for entertainment purposes... and you were my entertainment today. Thanks for that.

[membengal]

Ron, I don't get the hurt feelings. You stated an assumption, and derek fact-checked the assumption. It's one of the interesting things about a board such as this. We all have assumptions, are they not to be tested when stated?

[Ickey44]

Ron, I don't get the hurt feelings. You stated an assumption, and derek fact-checked the assumption. It's one of the interesting things about a board such as this. We all have assumptions, are they not to be tested when stated?

Who says I've got hurt feelings? I was spoken to in a way I didn't like and I returned the favor. It's not the fact that he "fact checked" me because he totally missed what players I was even talking about. There was sarcasm and implied stupidity in his response which I gave right back to him.

As far as the statement he's referring to, I've already said that I typed that before I checked some stats, but I still stand by my initial arguement. I think in all his ramblings, he must've missed that I said that.

[TJJackson]

Hair's point stands, and you might as well yield, all of you. He's right.

The complaining in THIS very thread is about Benson's workload to date.

Thats ALMOST right

First, it isn't complaining. he has been DA man.

Second, it's about the future. He's already had x carries, x is a far heavier than normal load for any RB, so let's see if we can't lighten the load when/if possible going forward (i've admitted at least once that we might not hit the 'ahead by 3 scores late' scenario, but I think it is likely enough that it bears mention) in order to ensure he is healthy for the stretch run and the possible playoffs

Given the ONE chance they have had to back his carries off occurred in a game where literally he was the only healthy back on the roster come the 4th quarter, when, and at what point, should they have lightened Benson's load to date this season?

They could not have lightened his load much to date, including Chicago despite the score.

Had we had the healthy backs available, and it not been Chicago, I'd point to Chicago. But they weren't, and it was. But again - not talking about the past, talking about the future.

In fact, and I can pull the threads if need be, the one game where he was run less was the Houston game, which they lost, and plenty of people on this site complained that he did not get the ball enough in that game.

Not I. We were behind, we had to throw.

In upcoming games, IF the Bengals get a nice late lead, AND the back-ups are not hurt, I am 100% sure that Benson will rest.

I hope so as well

[TJJackson]

for those of you who can't keep track of the real facts relating to the games actually played (Chicago)it's probably the easier way to go.

I've already admitted my mistake and in choosing Chicago specifically because of the score, without saying i was only pointing to the score.

Did you miss that particular fact?

Or is it just more fun to keep hounding me for something I have already admitted to moved on?

If you engage in empty speculation it's perfectly fair for others to point out how it's all....empty speculation.

It is not empty speculation to consider the possibility of a blowout game here and there, based on the Bengals overall success thus far, the 45 points put on the Bears, the 31 put on the Packers, and the fact that several weaker teams are coming up on the schedule.

Speculation - yes

Empty - no

Half of what we talk about here - including but not limited to your own diatribes - is speculation

Speculating about how we'll sign Peyton Manning in the offseason would be speculation I'd consider empty.

Speculating if we might be best served to lighten Cedric's load during the later parts of possible blowout wins is nowhere near empty.

[HairOnFire]

I've already admitted my mistake and in choosing Chicago specifically because of the score, without saying i was only pointing to the score. Did you miss that particular fact?

Of course I didn't miss that. In fact, it gave me great pleasure to point out your mistake again since at the time you were busy doing that Sweetie thing you like to do.

Or is it just more fun to keep hounding me for something I have already admitted to...

Yes.

Speculating if we might be best served to lighten Cedric's load during the later parts of possible blowout wins is nowhere near empty.

If? Might? Possible? All said in regards to games that haven't been played yet?

How is this NOT empty speculation?

[TJJackson]

All speculation involves the word if

Intrinsically

so again, not empty