nfoligno Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Looking at some of the talk about Mendenhall entering the draft, I got to wondering. What sort of RB do we want to add to the team to compete w/ Benson. Now, I know some of you want to simply write Benson out of the picture, but I do not believe that is the teams plans. So assume for this argument we are simply looking to add competition for Benson. Do we wan to add a RB similar to Benson? I am talking about style. A north/south runner that has size and can run well up the middle. Or do we look for more of a speedy, shifty back that is known for catching as well as receiving? I know Jason would like to add a homerun hitter, but is that the sort of RB we are going to be seeking. I would love a fast, homerun hitter that can catch, but I would think we would be looking for an inside runner similar to Benson. If not, it would seem like we would have to alter our offense depending on who wins the starting job, and by the time that decision is made, it would likely be too late for OUR STAFF to change the offense and tailor it toward a different styled runner. The other side of the argument though is, if we add a RB too similar to Benson, and Benson wins the starting job, that #2 RB may never play. If he doesn't offer anything more than Benson, would he see the field? Sort of a catch 22. Get a RB w/ a different style, and you run into scheme issues. Get a RB w/ similar style, but Benson wins the job, then your addition may rarely see the field. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I think that the answer to this question is Thomas Jones. Specifically, you want balance for Benson, you need to look for a speedy, cut-back type runner. Benson is by design a bruiser. He should be the guy who takes a hit and goes through it, who is hard to bring down, who gets you an extra yard or two just off of momentum, who gets a hole opened for him right in front of him and nails it. The change of pace for him is a guy who can run a sweep, who can stop and cut back if a hole opens unexpectedly somewhere else. Furthermore, IMO, the Bears already have another guy who is an inside runner similar to Benson...that's the one thing I felt AP was a good guy at, running inside. I think if you stick Peterson behind a good line, he's a good change of pace for a fast or shifty running back as well, which is why Benson and AP are tragically mismatched; both fill the same role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 The Bears need a home run threat but someone who will is able to go up the middle as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Someone who is like Mendenhall, ORRRRRRRR maybe we should just nab him? ;] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Someone who is like Mendenhall, ORRRRRRRR maybe we should just nab him? ;] The problem is...for any of these guys to be effective, the Bears also need a vastly better performance from their O-Line, and these may well be mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Johnathon Stewart Great size and speed. good receiver. this is the guy we want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think the guy needs to be a receiving threat who is still big enough to run between the tackles. The Bears need to be able to use the RB screen more. Can you believe our AP had 51 receptions to Benson's 17? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think we've all come to that conclusion. Please don't take offense, but it's kind of like saying we need air to breathe... The problem is...for any of these guys to be effective, the Bears also need a vastly better performance from their O-Line, and these may well be mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 A fairly young home run hitter that can catch, block and do some damage up the middle. Kind of a lot to ask for! I'm not sure who that is. I like what I've seen with Mendenhall. I like what I've seen of Michael Turner. While I'm not sure either really will fit the bill until given the chance, I'd be comfroatable as a fan if either of those 2 made it on the team. There are others too, but as far as the bigger names we have a shot at getting, those 2 look about as good as any. Looking at some of the talk about Mendenhall entering the draft, I got to wondering. What sort of RB do we want to add to the team to compete w/ Benson. Now, I know some of you want to simply write Benson out of the picture, but I do not believe that is the teams plans. So assume for this argument we are simply looking to add competition for Benson. Do we wan to add a RB similar to Benson? I am talking about style. A north/south runner that has size and can run well up the middle. Or do we look for more of a speedy, shifty back that is known for catching as well as receiving? I know Jason would like to add a homerun hitter, but is that the sort of RB we are going to be seeking. I would love a fast, homerun hitter that can catch, but I would think we would be looking for an inside runner similar to Benson. If not, it would seem like we would have to alter our offense depending on who wins the starting job, and by the time that decision is made, it would likely be too late for OUR STAFF to change the offense and tailor it toward a different styled runner. The other side of the argument though is, if we add a RB too similar to Benson, and Benson wins the starting job, that #2 RB may never play. If he doesn't offer anything more than Benson, would he see the field? Sort of a catch 22. Get a RB w/ a different style, and you run into scheme issues. Get a RB w/ similar style, but Benson wins the job, then your addition may rarely see the field. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 we need someone who can run between the tackles but is also a threat to take it to the house when they do. Receiving and blocking skills would be an added bonus. Someone like Jamaal Charles in the 2nd or Allen Patrick in the late 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 I think we've all come to that conclusion. Please don't take offense, but it's kind of like saying we need air to breathe... The key part of my claim there is that they may well be mutually exclusive. In other words, if I think it's important to focus on the O-Line in round 1, then that precludes the Bears drafting a first round RB, which is what some poeple here are suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 The key part of my claim there is that they may well be mutually exclusive. In other words, if I think it's important to focus on the O-Line in round 1, then that precludes the Bears drafting a first round RB, which is what some poeple here are suggesting. I think the thing balta is saying is its not really worth talking about what type of back we need if the oline isn't fixed, cause it wont matter. I think its obvious that we need a speed threat to go with Benson's straight ahead style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Can you believe our AP had 51 receptions to Benson's 17? Yes, Benson's hands are worse than Tyson Chandler's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Personally, I have been saying OL for a long, long time. But just because you do one, does not mean you can't do the other as well. Angelo has said bringing in competition at RB is a priority. I PRAY the OL is also a top priority. As for the sort of RB, you say it is obvious we need a speed back to compliment Benson, but would that be bringing in competition? That is the sort of catch 22 I was talking about. How do we provide "competition" for Benson while at the same time, having a player who would also be a compliment if Benson does win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brletich Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Personally, I have been saying OL for a long, long time. But just because you do one, does not mean you can't do the other as well. Angelo has said bringing in competition at RB is a priority. I PRAY the OL is also a top priority. As for the sort of RB, you say it is obvious we need a speed back to compliment Benson, but would that be bringing in competition? That is the sort of catch 22 I was talking about. How do we provide "competition" for Benson while at the same time, having a player who would also be a compliment if Benson does win. Why does it have to be one or the other? There are many backs who are solid inside runners, who also have the speed to hit the home run. Lawrence Marony, Ryan Grant, Marion Barber, and of course LT. Why can't we find a back who is decent at everything instead of one who can only do one or the other as a "compliment"? I think you provide competition by bringing in the best back you can and then making Benson compete with him. If Benson wins, it is because he can be an all-purpose back (or our staff is a bunch of idiots ). If the other guy wins, then Angelo made a mistake drafting Benson with the #4 pick . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 A fairly young home run hitter that can catch, block and do some damage up the middle. Kind of a lot to ask for! Um. Yea, that sounds great. How about we just draft LT:) I would argue the combo of: a) homerun hitter between the tackles power and c) pass catcher are a fairly rare combo. You have some in the league, but not many. So while it is great to imagine all that, I am not sure it is so simple as saying that is what we are looking for. As for Mendenhall, and Stewart and all the other 1st round RBs I have seen mentioned and discussed, I am not sure those are who we should be talking about. I am not sure bringing in another 1st round RB qualifies as "competition". Seems a tag more than that to me. And beside that point, I still think we would be much better off w/ an OT in the 1st round. Look what Joe Thomas and the rest of the improved OL did for Jamal Lewis. That improved OL made a has-been RB look almost young again. W/ regard to Michael Turner, once again, I am not sure that is competition. If we add Turner, it will cost a boat load and he will not be coming in if he might not even be the starter. He is going to want a guaranteed starting job after sitting behind LT for so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Why does it have to be one or the other? There are many backs who are solid inside runners, who also have the speed to hit the home run. Lawrence Marony, Ryan Grant, Marion Barber, and of course LT. Why can't we find a back who is decent at everything instead of one who can only do one or the other as a "compliment"? First, I am not sure I would agree Marony is great at all of the above list. In fact, I would really question Maroney. He is playing on the most potent offense, and still has not broken out as expected. But him aside, I agree. There are backs like that in the world. I would simply argue there at not that many. And they are usually called pro bowlers. Look, I understand what you are thinking, and agree w/ the logic. At the same time, I am trying to think in terms of what Angelo is likely to do. I have seen many talk about Michael Turner, who some believe is a RB w/ all those traits. I have seen many others talk about Merenhall, and Stewart and other 1st round pcks. I simply do not think that will be an option, and do not think that would be "bring in some competition". Far more likely, that is an attempt to replace, which I do not believe Angelo is prepared to do. Competition is not adding a player so expensive that you can not afford for him to be a backup. I think you provide competition by bringing in the best back you can and then making Benson compete with him. If Benson wins, it is because he can be an all-purpose back (or our staff is a bunch of idiots ). If the other guy wins, then Angelo made a mistake drafting Benson with the #4 pick . Again. As I said above. That is a nice sentiment, but w/ salary cap, I am not sure how practical it is. You can not afford to have a $5m/yr backup RB. We were not happy w/ Benson (a 1st round pick) backing up TJ. No way, unless we have simply given up on Benson, would we be okay w/ a 1st round pick backing him up. Adding a 1st round pick RB or Turner is not adding competition. It is replament. Pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Jamal Charles? You want to bring in a Texas RB to compete w/ Benson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Jamal Charles? You want to bring in a Texas RB to compete w/ Benson? Who cares if they went to the same college. It's a matter of getting the best prospect. Just like JA shouldn't shy away from drafting BC linemen because of the Marc Colombu disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 A fairly young home run hitter that can catch, block and do some damage up the middle. Kind of a lot to ask for! Um. Yea, that sounds great. How about we just draft LT:) I would argue the combo of: a) homerun hitter between the tackles power and c) pass catcher are a fairly rare combo. You have some in the league, but not many. So while it is great to imagine all that, I am not sure it is so simple as saying that is what we are looking for. As for Mendenhall, and Stewart and all the other 1st round RBs I have seen mentioned and discussed, I am not sure those are who we should be talking about. I am not sure bringing in another 1st round RB qualifies as "competition". Seems a tag more than that to me. And beside that point, I still think we would be much better off w/ an OT in the 1st round. Look what Joe Thomas and the rest of the improved OL did for Jamal Lewis. That improved OL made a has-been RB look almost young again. W/ regard to Michael Turner, once again, I am not sure that is competition. If we add Turner, it will cost a boat load and he will not be coming in if he might not even be the starter. He is going to want a guaranteed starting job after sitting behind LT for so long. I'd like MT just because he's a local kid, but he's only really had 1 real good game in each season 05,06,07. Heck, you can say the same about there 3rd stringer Darin Sproiles (5-6" 181 lb). There's alot of hype about Turner for his 1 game wonders. I think he will be a great #2 in the NFL, but he'll be looking for #1 money and I hate to give it to him. We'd be better off drafting a RB anywhere RD4 and after IMO. There will be plenty of talent in the later rounds (Darius Walker undrafted) that can be capable RB's in the NFL. Our problem is more about our philosophy and our O-line. The Bears need to upgrade these areas and our RB's should improve. Our FA $ and draft picks need to be invested in the OL, S, and WR IMO. Once these areas are addressed with starter quality, we can then reach for developmental prospects (QB, RB) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Well, Dallas is pretty happy w/ Columbo. We had bad luck (or he did) w/ injuries, but he did develop into a starting OT. But I was just making a joke. Texas has put out plenty of great RB. W/ that said, I am not as sure Charles is one. He doesn't get a tenth the hype Benson did. He is a great RB on a great offense, but I am not sure how much of it is him, and how much is the rest of the offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Well, Dallas is pretty happy w/ Columbo. We had bad luck (or he did) w/ injuries, but he did develop into a starting OT. But I was just making a joke. Texas has put out plenty of great RB. W/ that said, I am not as sure Charles is one. He doesn't get a tenth the hype Benson did. He is a great RB on a great offense, but I am not sure how much of it is him, and how much is the rest of the offense. I always thought we were premature in releasing Columbo... boy, would he look good as our RT for now and many more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Sure, he would look great now, but that is hindsight 20/20. I know you say you felt it was a mistake, but I thought it was the right move. As I recall, he wasn't even expected to be healthy the following year. Sometimes, you can only wait so long on a player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 I agree we're not going to draft a first round prospect nor spend big bucks in FA so this means our new RB isn't perfect, but he's good enough to provide competition. While I'd like to see the home run speed long runs are really as much about speed as they are about scheme and the ability to make a guy or two miss. What I think we'll see is a guy who has more quickness than elite speed. He'll still be fast enough to break a long run but not that guy who pulls away from guys. He'll still be big enough to run plays up the middle but probably won't have the power to take a LB backwards. He needs to be stout enough to carry the load fulltime if need be because that will never be something Wolfe can provide. Simply put, I want a RB who is good at stretch plays and screens. Add some shake to the bake. I view Ced and AP as being similar. Ced having more ability and AP having more desire. They can battle for the inside running job since neither of them shine working outside the tackles or on screen routes. I don't think we'd have to alter our offense because we have those plays in the playbook they just aren't too effective with Ced or AP. Which style RB starts doesn't matter a great deal IMO since the alternate coming in for 10-12 plays has a different style. The most productive guy starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 I'd like MT just because he's a local kid, but he's only really had 1 real good game in each season 05,06,07. Heck, you can say the same about there 3rd stringer Darin Sproiles (5-6" 181 lb). There's alot of hype about Turner for his 1 game wonders. I think he will be a great #2 in the NFL, but he'll be looking for #1 money and I hate to give it to him. We'd be better off drafting a RB anywhere RD4 and after IMO. There will be plenty of talent in the later rounds (Darius Walker undrafted) that can be capable RB's in the NFL. Our problem is more about our philosophy and our O-line. The Bears need to upgrade these areas and our RB's should improve. Our FA $ and draft picks need to be invested in the OL, S, and WR IMO. Once these areas are addressed with starter quality, we can then reach for developmental prospects (QB, RB) Don't forget that DEnver picked up Selvin Young as an undrafted rookie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.