Packers expected to sign Cedric Benson

[Turk Nowitzki]

Great, another veteran so McCarthy can cock block Starks.

Starks brought this on himself.

[trwi7]

Joke














Turk's head

[Bucksfans1and2]

Good move. Maybe this will wake Starks up.

Underrated Post

Could very much see this being the reason for these rumors

[Icness]

Benson would be a good fit, but he's a RB that is heavily dependent on getting good interior blocking. When he got that in CIN he was very effective at grinding out 4-6 yard gains in bunches. When he didn't he was lucky to get 3 and when he panics he fumbles. Sorta depends on how you view the G-C-G in run blocking.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Joke














Turk's head

[jr lucosa]

Like others have noted, I like it because he is dependable for a 3-4 yard gain almost every carry. Doesn't have big play ability at this point but can be reliable. It's not like we need to pound the ball on the ground ever just a nice change of pace to pick up a 1st or something.

I'm not saying he will uproot Starks as the starter, but if his fumbleitus and awfulitus continue (two serious conditions) he can't start for any team.

[Asher]

if he can pick up the blitz, shed some blockers and maybe catch the ball a bit more out of the backfield on checkdowns, should be a good move. if nothing else it should create some competition.

[Ayt]

Benson is pretty limited. He's always had very good vision and short area burst, but he's definitely not the type who is going to break off long runs. He only had 4 20+ yard runs last year. Out of the top 20 rushers last year in terms of yardage (Benson ranked 12th), he tied for the fewest runs of 20+ yards with Lynch and Greene at 4. Starks had 5 last year in only 133 carries (Benson had 273 carries), and Starks is awful at the second level. In 2010, Benson had 321 carries and only 2 runs of 20+ yards. That is mind boggling. In 2009, he had 10 on 301 carries.

Benson's other major issue is fumbling. He has had 12 fumbles the last two years. He had 5 last year and 7 the year prior. No RB has had more the last two years.

He's also not a threat out of the backfield as receiver, though he's a tough pass blocker.

The fit is a little odd considering his weaknesses. MM will not play a fumbler. His lack of ability as a receiver also really limits his usefulness. In theory, he could be a useful short yardage back. I'd say he'd have value as a pure lunch pail 3+ yards and a cloud of dust type runner, but the massive fumbling issues negate the value he'd have in that regard.

Starks obviously hasn't developed as we'd hoped. His lack of vision beyond the LOS is atrocious. He basically just runs directly into people, so he isn't the type of runner that is really going to get you much beyond what the OL creates for him.

I've been very disappointed in Green. The first things I look for in a young RB are vision and instincts in traffic. Green appears lacking in both aspects. He could be great in the open field, but he's only going to get there on screen passes or perfectly blocked running plays, because he looks like an athlete with a ball in his hands rather than a natural running back when the ball is handed to him.

[Ayt]

People have questioned TT when it comes to player acquisitions at OL and DL, but he's done a rather poor job at RB. In our offense, we could really use a big play HB to play in "regular" formations and a big play HB to play in passing formations. The only big play RB we've had was Grant early in his career here.

Given how strong our passing game is, you'd think it would be relatively easy to find RBs who could take advantage of how often the defense is looking pass and playing a pass D package. It is pretty sad we can't gash teams on the ground when they are playing nickel and dime all game even out of our shotty and spread sets.

I think he obviously saw Green as the type of very fast, athletic beast who could take advantage of what defenses give us, but he got hurt and he also appears to be lacking as a natural runner.

I've mentioned it before, but I loved what MM did in NO as the OC. While there, he destroyed teams by utilizing Deuce as a runner and receiver in his spread offense. I've always wanted to see how he'd do with a RB even close to that in GB, but we haven't come close to finding a player like that.

Imagine MM having a guy like Sproles to play with. Or, even better, Ray Rice. Sick.

[Bucksfans1and2]

People have questioned TT when it comes to player acquisitions at OL and DL, but he's done a rather poor job at RB. In our offense, we could really use a big play HB to play in "regular" formations and a big play HB to play in passing formations. The only big play RB we've had was Grant early in his career here.

Given how strong our passing game is, you'd think it would be relatively easy to find RBs who could take advantage of how often the defense is looking pass and playing a pass D package. It is pretty sad we can't gash teams on the ground when they are playing nickel and dime all game even out of our shotty and spread sets.

I think he obviously saw Green as the type of very fast, athletic beast who could take advantage of what defenses give us, but he got hurt and he also appears to be lacking as a natural runner.

I've mentioned it before, but I loved what MM did in NO as the OC. While there, he destroyed teams by utilizing Deuce as a runner and receiver in his spread offense. I've always wanted to see how he'd do with a RB even close to that in GB, but we haven't come close to finding a player like that.

Imagine MM having a guy like Sproles to play with. Or, even better, Ray Rice. Sick.

You dedicate resources to a position based on it's importance. The fact that we've dedicated so little resources to the RB spot should tell you what Ted thinks of it. Sometimes you get lucky and a return does way better than you expect when you make the investment. Hasn't happened at RB yet.

As for Green . . . what are we basing this opinion off of?

[jimmybones]

As for Green . . . what are we basing this opinion off of?

This. I don't think we've seen enough of Green yet to write him off. Still have hope for him.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Starks not practicing

[BigDee]

Starks not practicing

He has turf toe.

[Sauce Boss]

I've mentioned it before, but I loved what MM did in NO as the OC. While there, he destroyed teams by utilizing Deuce as a runner and receiver in his spread offense. I've always wanted to see how he'd do with a RB even close to that in GB, but we haven't come close to finding a player like that.

I had forgotten all about Deuce McAllister until you mentioned him right now. It be amazing if we had a player like him with our offense. I'm drooling thinking about it

[BigDee]

Paul Imig says the Pack have signed Benson should be at practice Monday morning.

[WiscoKing13]

Paul Imig says the Pack have signed Benson should be at practice Monday morning.

yep, packers just posted it on facebook. Benson has to better short yardage back then kuhn.

From what I remember(this could be wrong) be he is horrible in pass protection and can't catch the ball very well. So when Benson is in he's either a liability in coverage/pass protection or everyone in the stadium will know were running the ball.

[WeekapaugGroove]

His pass pro was average not bad last season but he's not much of a receiver. no bonus on the one year deal tells me he's far from a lock to make the team.

[Buckrageous]

On 3rd and 1 I'd take Benson over any of these other backs from what I've seen.

[MickeyDavis]

The fumblimg issue is what's a bit puzzling in this signing

They’re both 29 years old. They’re both at similar junctures in their career — a little desperate. Money isn't a major issue here. Neither Cedric Benson or Ryan Grant have much leverage at the negotiating table. Not on August 12.

So...why not sign the guy who has been in this offense since 2007?

That’s been the nagging question on Twitter since news of Benson in Green Bay broke on Friday. We won’t get Mike McCarthy’s take on the signing until Monday, but here are a few initial thoughts on the Packers going with Benson over Grant:

--- They're both old by running back standards, but Benson's play these last three seasons suggests he could give the Packers more in 2012. He's fresh off three straight 1,000-yard seasons. There haven't been glaring warning signs in Benson's game that he's on the cusp of breaking down. Grant had a strong December, but did next to nothing on the ground before that. During an eight-game stretch -- in the heart of Green Bay's schedule -- he averaged 2.6 yards per carry. Replay the defenses that Grant faced along his late-season surge. Teams were begging the Packers to run the ball. Benson? With a rookie quarterback under center, he still managed 1,067 yards on 273 carries (3.9 avg.) with six touchdowns.

--- OK, so Benson won't be running for 1,000 yards in Green Bay. McCarthy prefers using multiple backs, anyways. But Benson may give the backfield a dimension it currently lacks -- a big, durable, between-the-tackles back. Alex Green fits best in a spread attack, in space. James Starks could be a complete back, but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Brandon Saine is best suited for a utility role. The Packers could use a two-down, no-nonsense back ramming between the tackles. Was Ryan Grant that guy? Not really in 2011. When McCarthy talked about changing the way Green Bay runs the football way back in February, maybe this is one way. On third and 1 and third and 2 last season, the Packers still passed the ball 39% of the time.

In Cincinnati, Benson was not necessarily reliable in pass protection. Is that an issue in Green Bay? Not if Saine or Green emerge in camp.

--- Now onto the one puzzling factor in this decision -- fumbling. Benson had 12 fumbles the last two seasons. His last two full seasons, Grant had three. If there's a definitive case for Grant, this is it. For a team that trumpets ball security so much, it is puzzling to sign someone with fumbling issues.

--- Aside from the Grant comparison, one concern with signing Benson has to be how it affects the other young running backs on the roster. Before we learned that Starks had a turf toe, this did feel like a panic move by Green Bay. One rocky exhibition game along a ho-hum camp for the backs alone doesn't warrant a knee-jerk signing like this. All off-season -- through OTA's and minicamp -- the Packers seemed prepared to give Starks, Green and Saine a chance to grow. A veteran can get in the way of this development. Promoting youth is how Ted Thompson has built a winner. But, yes, signing someone did become a necessity when Starks suffered the turf toe injury. When everyone is healthy, things could get interesting.

--- One final point we kicked around earlier. This team will live and die with Aaron Rodgers. There was no need for the Packers to overpay for any veteran running back in free agency, no need to suddenly change the formula that worked for 15 of 17 games in 2011. But in 2012, you have to think the Packers will find themselves in closer games. Their four-minute offense may be more value. The Packers simply weren't milking many one-score games deep into the fourth quarter last season. Starks closed out a win at Minnesota with crucial first downs down the stretch. Soon, ankle problems would rob his season. At 227 pounds, Benson might be a consistent closer for the Packers.

We'll see. This is an intriguing signing, one Ted Thompson has rarely ever made before this off-season. The off-season in general has been a stark change in Thompson's strategy. Time will tell if Benson is indeed a better option than Grant.