Benson was waived by the Bears

What a jerk to bring up facts and rational thought v. the sooners comments. Shame on you. *sarcasm for those whose meters are not calibrated*
 
I thought Benson, as a freshman, was pretty remarkable. I also thought that he was never same after getting injured against Colorado in Big 12 Debacle
 
i'm not going to read all 8 pages, but I'm pretty sure the Chicago Bears players didn't want to play with Benson, anyway. If they were mad about a holdout, they were being *******. That's what you do when your money isn't right in the NFL. Ask Urlacher - who signed the richest deal in the league a few years ago, but is bitching now.

Also, they wanted their homeboy T. Jones. The few yards and TDs Ced did get were well earned. Getting hit in the backfield on about 25% of your plays will not make you an NFL superstar. Thomas Jones didn't seem to have that problem. The brother isn't that fast, is he?

**** the Bears.

Having said that, Ced didn't do much to bring them back to him once he started playing. He should have held his mouth closed and ran the ball. I don't know if I would have been able to do it, either. If the team doesn't want me to help them win, we're not a team. That makes me "the player" and as "the player" - **** the Bears.
 
now the sooner is pointing out who is in the backfield with benson. yet he lists people like clinton portis and q griffin, who were on bcs teams with heisman caliber players. does that count against those guys like it did benson, or just against ced?
also, generally ypc goes down with more carries, but of course you're a sooner and arguing against a texas player so you'll just go ahead and assume that portis would have increased his ypc, right?
you were right, portis eclipsed ced's freashman rushing totals exactly once. as a junior. never matched ced's freshman td's, though.
 
OK, Stockdale...I get it...You're just trolling...

Why else would you cling on to Clinton Portis? What better way to make your argument sound stupid than to compare Benson with a pro-bowler who was the NFL offensive rookie of the year - a guy who has rushed for 7715 yards in the NFL with a 4.5 ypc average - better numbers than Ricky Williams has put up?

Why else would you harp on Portis' lack of a great college season in one sentence, and then bring up Q. Griffin in the next? For a second, I thought you were just unaware that Griffin's 1884 yards in '02 was more than Benson ever gained in a season, and that Griffin's 6.3 ypc was better than Benson ever achieved.

Why else would you complain that someone is running down Texas players when they point out what a stud Vince Young was?

Now I realize that there is a method to your madness....You are just trying to make the stupidest of all possible arguments.
 
Oops...It actually seems that Q. Griffin rushed for 6.56 ypc in '02. No doubt, if he actually got 39 more carries that Benson had in '04 he'd have run backwards and ended up with numbers more like Benson's.

Your point about the Heisman-caliber Nate Hybl putting just as much pressure on defenses as Vince Young is one I had never considered before....It truly leaves me at a loss for words...
 
and you really are arguing that ypc goes up with a significant increase in carries?
dude, you are special.
 
Q. Griffin had 1800 yds one year?
wtf.gif


I don't remember that but might be true since he had 400 against us.
 
"Stupidity is claiming that Benson was better than Portis because Portis never had a huge year, and then turning around and griping that Griffin is nowhere near as good as Benson, despite his monster '02 season. "

Come on. Stupidity? There's no contradiction there: Quentin Griffin's best year was comparable to Cedric's best (1884 yards in 14 games vs. 1834 in 12), but his other years at OU were nowhere near a match for Cedric's first three at Texas. Portis, on the other hand, had neither a monstrous year (his best was 1200 yards in 2001) NOR consistently good years at Miami (838 yards in 1999, 485 in 2000).
 
Stupidity is also saying that what makes Benson "great" is his career rushing mark and then turning around and saying Benson is better than Ron Dayne.

If career rushing yards is the definition of greatness, then Ron Dayne is the greatest running back of all time.
 
"If career rushing yards is the definition of greatness, then Ron Dayne is the greatest running back of all time. "

I don't think anyone on this thread has said that career rushing yards is THE definition of greatness. In fact, just about everybody defending Cedric has ranked him BELOW people (Campbell, Walker, Bo Jackson, etc.) who gained fewer yards. Pointing out a running back's career stats is not the same thing as arguing that Ron Dayne was better than Earl Campbell. How can people not get that? It's possible to consider career stats as one important measure of running back's career and, at the same time, take into account other factors like injuries or the quality of his opponents. You don't have to be Einstein to do it.

By the way, you keep acting like the Longhorn nation would take umbrage at the comparison of Ron Dayne and Cedric Benson, but I don't think it would bother anyone at all. It's a long thread, but I don't remember anyone saying Benson was categorically better than Dayne. I know I didn't--Dayne was a awfully good college running back.
 
The point is that after it's pointed out that Benson was 0-4 against OU and never running for 100 yards against them or in a bowl and and having a nasty habit of disappearing in big games, people say that Benson is 6th on the all time yardage list and that makes him a "great back."

Benson was a good back, not a great one.
 
"Good", "great", and "very good" are all relative terms, which is why this argument is so pointless. The folks who call Cedric "great" on this thread have repeatedly ranked him below the same folks you'd probably consider "great": Herschel Walker, Ricky Williams, Bo Jackson, Earl, etc. If Ron Dayne is "good" to you, well, I can't really argue that Cedric doesn't belong in that category.
 
This is interesting, though: "a nasty habit of disappearing in big games".

I'm not saying that's not true, because Cedric definitely could have done more on big stages at UT, but earlier in this thread, Jive Turkey wrote:

"Ced had no big games in big time games. Not in the OU games, NU games, Big 12 title games, bowl games, Rose Bowl, you name it. He destroyed the Rices of the world..."

Actually, Cedric ran for 174 yards and three touchdowns against 12th-ranked Nebraska in 2003. For comparison, Ricky Williams basically secured his Heisman with his 150-yard day against 7th-ranked NU in 1998.

The 2003 Huskers finished 10-3 and ranked 19th; the 1998 team was 9-4 and also finished 19th. Statistically, the 2003 defense was better, and they were a talented, well-coached group, with Bo Pelini as the DC.

Obviously, there are reasons to be more impressed with Ricky's performance (on the road, didn't have VY), but the difference in the way the two performances are perceived is interesting. People (even knowledgeable posters on this board) don't even remember Cedric's game.
 
Cedric was an exceedingly good and dependable short yardage back, good enough to depend on for first downs. Thus, he got lots of carries, and accumulated lots of yards. Thus, he shortened the games for our defense, which came in handy, because we were weak there. When he broke free, he was average at open field running, so there aren't many highlights or long runs to raise his YPC. (I'm one who thinks he had better breakaway ability before the CCG neck injury.)

Anyway, that's Cedric. Ron Dayne's probably a good comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top