Cedric Benson going forward could be solid a #2 rb (1 Viewer)

[Thumper]

As someone who took a late round flyer and Cedric Benson I couldn't be happier tonight. Not only did Benson put up solid numbers tonight (116 total yards) against a very good defense the real story here is the serious commitment the Packers made to getting him the ball. Benson ran the ball 20 times and had 3 catches out of the backfield. I am thrilled at the prospect of 20+ touches per week in a high powered offense like GB has.

Benson has put up low level #1 rb in offenses that aren't anywhere near as good as GB. I understand that he did very little last week against the 49ers, but nobody can run against that defense. When you combine Benson's oppritunity with the lack of competition (do you really think a mediocrity like James Starks is going to cut into Benson's time?) Benson has a chance to make a serious impact in GB.

I suggest grabbing Benson (if you still can) and plan on getting solid #2 rb production from him going forward.

 

[meyerj31]

Here we go...

 

[meyerj31]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

 

[Thumper]

Here we go.

When you consider what Benson has going for him why is anything I mentioned out of the question? I'm not saying he is a can't miss back, but you have to admit the stars are lining up for him to post some solid numbers.

 

[Thumper]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I don't see any reason why he couldn't get at least 6 td's in this offense. Maybe Ryan Grant didn't score a lot because he wasn't very good? I submit that Grant's numbers were a result of the system he was playing in. A better back would have put up better numbers.Again, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Benson is going to be a fantasy superstar, but he has the oppritunity to be a true workhorse back. Not many rb's can say that in today's NFL.

 

[Ladsud]

He should be able to put up some decent yardage numbers, Rodgers and Kuhn will be kicking you in the nuts on the goal line.

 

[SameSongNDance]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I never thought I'd see the day that someone would give Benson a bump in PPR over standard. That alone, makes my night.

 

[smackdaddies]

Still only going to be a RB 3. Which is great if you got him in RB 7/8 territory.

 

[habsfan]

As someone who took a late round flyer and Cedric Benson I couldn't be happier tonight. Not only did Benson put up solid numbers tonight (116 total yards) against a very good defense the real story here is the serious commitment the Packers made to getting him the ball. Benson ran the ball 20 times and had 3 catches out of the backfield. I am thrilled at the prospect of 20+ touches per week in a high powered offense like GB has.

Benson has put up low level #1 rb in offenses that aren't anywhere near as good as GB. I understand that he did very little last week against the 49ers, but nobody can run against that defense. When you combine Benson's oppritunity with the lack of competition (do you really think a mediocrity like James Starks is going to cut into Benson's time?) Benson has a chance to make a serious impact in GB.

I suggest grabbing Benson (if you still can) and plan on getting solid #2 rb production from him going forward.

The flaw I see in your argument is that giving a RB 20+ touches is not what makes this offense high powered. If you believe that GB has had an epiphany in the past week and suddenly wants to be a run first (or even balanced) offense, then Benson is money. What I think I saw last night was "Plan B" because "Plan A" (the passing attack) was clearly out of sync.

 

[cpd90]

Encouraging performance from Benson. Shockingly, he was dropped in my league after last week's performace (10 team but deep benches) and I'm looking to grab him on waivers. What % of your FAAB budget would you put on Benson if he were to become available in your league?

I'm still not exceptionally high on Benson. I wasn't before the season and I'm not now, but he could still be one of the better players to hit waivers in this league

 

[comfortably numb]

The last time the GB Packers had a RB attempt 20 rushes was at Chicago in the 2011 NFCCG.

It seemed like they they had early success with Benson and stuck with it...having a lead throughout.

I would guess it will be like this most of the season.

If Benson looks good early, they will run about 16-20 times with him.

If he looks bad early he will finish with 9-15 carries.

I don't see him breaking any monster runs much and GL TD's might go to him or Kuhn.

Bottom line, i think it will be too spotty to rely on him, but in a jam I would feel very comfortable throwing him out.

Side note: If he can get 2-4 rec a game that changes EVERYTHING! well, not really, but it helps a lot

 

[AngryPatriot]

I thought it was encouraging. The fact that he's playing on a winning team cannot be understated, there will be enough to go around. He'll get some goal line carries, catch some short passes, get his. RB2-3 at this point.

 

[meyerj31]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I never thought I'd see the day that someone would give Benson a bump in PPR over standard. That alone, makes my night.

I'm not sure I understand ... is he not normally a good pass-catching back? He looked very good last night (4 catches for 40 yards). Perhaps he just hasn't been used in that role so far in his career.

 

[meyerj31]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I don't see any reason why he couldn't get at least 6 td's in this offense. Maybe Ryan Grant didn't score a lot because he wasn't very good? I submit that Grant's numbers were a result of the system he was playing in. A better back would have put up better numbers.Again, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Benson is going to be a fantasy superstar, but he has the oppritunity to be a true workhorse back. Not many rb's can say that in today's NFL.

I don't know how you are drawing these conclusions but there is no such thing as a "workhorse back" in McCarthy's offense. The goal of the RB in that offense is to run enough that it opens up the passing lanes. A workhorse back is someone that is the focal point of the offense (see Ray Rice, Foster ... I would argue McCoy is not a true workhorse back either, he just makes the most of his opportunities). There's one workhorse player in that offense and it is Aaron Rodgers.

 

[doeseatplace]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I never thought I'd see the day that someone would give Benson a bump in PPR over standard. That alone, makes my night.

I'm not sure I understand ... is he not normally a good pass-catching back? He looked very good last night (4 catches for 40 yards). Perhaps he just hasn't been used in that role so far in his career.

The last 3 years, while he was gaining 1000+ yds on the ground, he caught 15, 28 and 17 passes

 

[Lord Fantasy]

I know it's the Mike McCarthy show, but GB does have a new coordinator in Tom Clements. Perhaps that person's voice is in the mix and we do see a more balanced attack. Perhaps Benson does start to get work at the goal line.

Fantasy aside I don't want to see one of the most exciting quarterbacks in the league hand the ball off 20 times a game. But maybe that's the plan.

 

[meyerj31]

I know it's the Mike McCarthy show, but GB does have a new coordinator in Tom Clements. Perhaps that person's voice is in the mix and we do see a more balanced attack. Perhaps Benson does start to get work at the goal line. Fantasy aside I don't want to see one of the most exciting quarterbacks in the league hand the ball off 20 times a game. But maybe that's the plan.

Rodgers did say after the game that the goal was to get Benson 20 touches. He ended up with 20 carries and another 6 targets receiving because he was doing well, though.That makes him a possible RB3 - but he has no upside. They don't run enough and he's just not going to get any TD looks.

 

[SameSongNDance]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB. Look at McCarthy's tenure when Ryan Grant was still healthy. At best Benson is a high RB3 base solely on a 3-4 catches per game in PPR. In non-PPR I'd rather grab a guy that will get fewer touches but more TD opportunities (see Hillis or Ingram).

I never thought I'd see the day that someone would give Benson a bump in PPR over standard. That alone, makes my night.

I'm not sure I understand ... is he not normally a good pass-catching back? He looked very good last night (4 catches for 40 yards). Perhaps he just hasn't been used in that role so far in his career.

He has better hands than people give him credit for, but of course he isn't a pass catching back haha. This is Cedric Benson we're talking about. This "PPR bump" would be a new revelation, one that IMO would make up for the possible sub-par TD totals he could end up with this year.All this aside, I will be shopping him around all week.

 

[shnikies]

He doesn't get to play one of the worst tackling teams in the league every week.

 

[bostonfred]

Rodgers did say after the game that the goal was to get Benson 20 touches. He ended up with 20 carries and another 6 targets receiving because he was doing well, though.That makes him a possible RB3 - but he has no upside. They don't run enough and he's just not going to get any TD looks.

I can understand how two different people would post these two very different paragraphs, but the same person?

 

[bostonfred]

He doesn't get to play one of the worst tackling teams in the league every week.

True, but he plays them in the playoffs (week 15) and also plays tennessee in week 16, who got gouged by ridley for 150 total yards last week. He also plays indy, st louis, jacksonville, and arizona, all apparently easy wins which are good for rb stats.

 

[fatness]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB.

Really? This is what you said about Starks:

I've picked him up for peanuts in every league and plan to get him cheaply in every re-draft. Starks definitely has the ability to be a solid RB2 in that offense. Injuries & durability are my only concerns, but every RB has that issue. If anything, he's got more going for him in that he'll be used less than workhorse backs. On the flip side, he's never been used as a workhorse back and still gets dinged up a lot. Either way, very much worth taking above his current ADP.

 

[DeaLerZ]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB.

Really? This is what you said about Starks:

I've picked him up for peanuts in every league and plan to get him cheaply in every re-draft. Starks definitely has the ability to be a solid RB2 in that offense. Injuries & durability are my only concerns, but every RB has that issue. If anything, he's got more going for him in that he'll be used less than workhorse backs. On the flip side, he's never been used as a workhorse back and still gets dinged up a lot. Either way, very much worth taking above his current ADP.

lol... can't argue with that

 

[hines]

why do people act like he will get zero goal line carries and never score TDs? Someone used Ryan Grant as an example, well Ryan Grant rushed for 11 TDs in 2009. clearly a RB2 based on the pass catching last night. 6 TDs is perfectly in range, and if he can average 60 yards and chip in 3-4 points a game receiving that's a 12 PPG back. good enough for #15 RB in my league last year.

 

[JHuber77]

And no, he's not going to be a RB2; there's no TD opportunities in this offense for a RB.

Really? This is what you said about Starks:

I've picked him up for peanuts in every league and plan to get him cheaply in every re-draft. Starks definitely has the ability to be a solid RB2 in that offense. Injuries & durability are my only concerns, but every RB has that issue. If anything, he's got more going for him in that he'll be used less than workhorse backs. On the flip side, he's never been used as a workhorse back and still gets dinged up a lot. Either way, very much worth taking above his current ADP.

 

[bagger]

I know it's the Mike McCarthy show, but GB does have a new coordinator in Tom Clements. Perhaps that person's voice is in the mix and we do see a more balanced attack. Perhaps Benson does start to get work at the goal line. Fantasy aside I don't want to see one of the most exciting quarterbacks in the league hand the ball off 20 times a game. But maybe that's the plan.

Rodgers did say after the game that the goal was to get Benson 20 touches. He ended up with 20 carries and another 6 targets receiving because he was doing well, though.That makes him a possible RB3 - but he has no upside. They don't run enough and he's just not going to get any TD looks.

which is fine...i drafted him as my rb4 so him filling in on byes, injuries, and maybe a good matchup here and there is perfect for what i need him for.the fact he got 15 points in ppr with not rushing for 100 yards or scoring a td makes me much more bullish on him being my rb3 on a consistant basis.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I think he'll make for a great match up play but do you guys expect him to get 20 touches a game from here on out? Last nights game looked like a bit of a aberration. Jennings was out, it was a short week and the offense looked out of sync. Running Benson there seemed like the logical choice. I could just as easily see 12-15/60/0 stat lines in the future.

 

[hines]

I think he'll make for a great match up play but do you guys expect him to get 20 touches a game from here on out? Last nights game looked like a bit of a aberration. Jennings was out, it was a short week and the offense looked out of sync. Running Benson there seemed like the logical choice. I could just as easily see 12-15/60/0 stat lines in the future.

but if he tosses in 3 rec for 20 yards that's not a awful game. and he will probably have some 18-80-1 TD, 4 rec-30 yard games too

 

[Clifford]

Last time he played Chicago he blew up for 189 yards and a TD. That was 2009, but I'd expect a little above the average of the first two games most of the time, not repeats of last night.

 

[sho nuff]

He doesn't get to play one of the worst tackling teams in the league every week.

Since when are the Bears one of the worst tackling teams?

 

[bigmurd]

He doesn't get to play one of the worst tackling teams in the league every week.

Since when are the Bears one of the worst tackling teams?

Seriously, that is just a nonsense statement. He's had two pretty tough matchups so far.

 

[Nucker101]

I'm not buying him as anything more than a flex or rb3 the rest of the season, of course he'll be a solid rb2 some weeks with a good matchup. He was obviously motivated playing against the Bears, but I need to see another solid game from him before calling him a solid rb2 the rest of the season.

 

[Shermanator]

He's the perfect type of back to protect the lead late in games. Oh and by the way, the Packers will have ALOT of leads late in games. Just like in the Chi game, he was a clock killer moving the chains. I really dont see why there are arguments against owning Benson.

He will never be confused with Arian Foster or Shady McCoy, but he is worthy of being on every fantasy roster out there.

 

[hines]

I'm not buying him as anything more than a flex or rb3 the rest of the season, of course he'll be a solid rb2 some weeks with a good matchup. He was obviously motivated playing against the Bears, but I need to see another solid game from him before calling him a solid rb2 the rest of the season.

RB3 or Flex means you think he is somewhere in the neighborhood of RB25-RB48. I find it very hard to believe people can find 24 RBs they'd rather have than Benson the rest of the year right now

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

He doesn't get to play one of the worst tackling teams in the league every week.

Since when are the Bears one of the worst tackling teams?

Seriously, that is just a nonsense statement. He's had two pretty tough matchups so far.

Football Outsiders rates the 2011 Bears rush defense as the 11th best of the last 20 years - http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/dvoa-70-best-teams-pass-and-runI think the number of touches Benson gets may still not be super relevant as he'll get run-the-clock garbage carries that may not gain any yards, like last night. He is looking like a low-end RB2 now though, and better than I expected.