BENGALS666 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Haven't seen the game on TV - and they probably won't include this bit in the replay. Saw this from the sidelines.. 1st half - Benson gets tripped up by Finnegan on a play that may have broken for a TD. Benson returns to sidelines and blows up in Gruden's face. Next offensive possession Scott takes all the snaps up until they get to scoring position. Did they cover this on TV? Just wondering what the deal was.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalLady Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 i did not see this on tv. i know scott was in though, which makes me happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 They didnt show Benson blow up on anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esjbh2 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 No blowup that I saw. There was a brief moment after a play where Benson was kinda smiling/laughing, turned to the sidelines and at first was pointing, but then flipped the bird. Again, it looked like he was joking/laughing. Besides that, it looked like they were simply rotating Scott in a few series thru the course of the game like they've done in the recent past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BENGALS666 Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Hmm.. Yeah he was blowing up for 30 secs at least after the Finny trip-up. Scott came in and Benson didn't return until they reached scoring position.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 [quote name='BENGALS666' timestamp='1320700081' post='1058425'] Hmm.. Yeah he was blowing up for 30 secs at least after the Finny trip-up. Scott came in and Benson didn't return until they reached scoring position.. [/quote] Maybe he was just telling the coach how close he came to breaking it. The switch to Scott is what we always do since Marvin made it a priority to give him more carries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BENGALS666 Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 He was definitely in Gruden's face though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBurfict55 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 This is the reason I didn't want Benson back, he is the last person we need to get rid off since we got rid of the other 2 headaches we had. Bring in Trent Richardson next year and let the door hit you on the way out Benson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsOwn Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 [quote name='Oldcat' timestamp='1320701933' post='1058430'] Maybe he was just telling the coach how close he came to breaking it. The switch to Scott is what we always do since Marvin made it a priority to give him more carries. [/quote] Why even try to guess what happened, and dispute what 666 saw in person, when you didn't see it happen?And taking out Benson for nearly an entire quarter in order to give Scott carries is fucking stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|High School Harry| Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 [quote name='BENGALS666' timestamp='1320703587' post='1058445'] He was definitely in Gruden's face though.. [/quote] I vote for he was pissed at the trip up and venting and it was not aimed at Gruden. Good attitude to have vs. whining and pouting like Hiney Hole Ward et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 I have no idea as far as this specific incident, but Cedric does often seem a little too concerned with his stats and his touches as opposed to team success. I'm sure he'd say that he wants the touches b/c that's what he thinks the team needs to get Ws, but still, he needs to chill his shit a little bit. I do agree with others that he's the closest thing we have to a malcontent on this team (which goes to show how few issues we have for once) and it would probably be wise to go a different direction at RB after this season. There are going to be some good RBs available both in FA and the draft this spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Forever Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 [quote name='BScott28' timestamp='1320703921' post='1058449'] This is the reason I didn't want Benson back, he is the last person we need to get rid off since we got rid of the other 2 headaches we had. Bring in Trent Richardson next year and let the door hit you on the way out Benson [/quote] Lol. All the hate for the guy who hasn't been ALL that bad since he has been here. Benson basically carried our offense in 09 to the playoffs. Granted he may not be as good as he was, but he's still valuable to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 I may not sit directly on the sidelines but I can see most everything that happens on the sidelines during home games. Alot of players look "animated" after coming off the field. Sometimes it will be in Gruden's face or (I think) Simmon's face. Not sure what it means but Gruden seems unflappable and nothing bothers him much. Although I did see Gruden in preseason with his eyes completely bulging out when a Bengal player made a bonehead play. Gruden sometimes has pictures in his hand (looks like field pictures) when players are "animated." May be in game adjustments (game plan and/or attitude) ??? I guess I just like it when an offensive coach is on the sidelines and it doesn't seem common that we have a delay of game and/or call a timeout because the play did not come in time from the booth... [url="http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2011/11/07/the-morning-line-117/"]http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2011/11/07/the-morning-line-117/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 [quote name='Who Dey Forever' timestamp='1320704929' post='1058457'] Lol. All the hate for the guy who hasn't been ALL that bad since he has been here. Benson basically carried our offense in 09 to the playoffs. Granted he may not be as good as he was, but he's still valuable to the team. [/quote] And after we tossed aside our decent running game to become a piss poor passing team in '10, I was malcontented too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 [quote name='BengalsOwn' timestamp='1320704139' post='1058450'] Why even try to guess what happened, and dispute what 666 saw in person, when you didn't see it happen? And taking out Benson for nearly an entire quarter in order to give Scott carries is fucking stupid. [/quote] I wasn't disputing what he saw, merely giving a different interpretation of the events. We have been giving Scott a series in each half for several weeks, was Ced blowing up then too? Why is giving a good runner carries stupid? We rotate the DL, Why not rotate the RB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 I like Benson and his running style. He fights for more yardage after contact. I want to keep him but I also want Trent Richardson for the future because I know RB's lose the IT factor fast after so many years and hits. It's not a position that ages well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 O HAI GUYZ. LETZ ALL TALK ABOUT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ABOUT SOMETHING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esjbh2 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 [quote name='Oldcat' timestamp='1320711793' post='1058506'] I wasn't disputing what he saw, merely giving a different interpretation of the events. We have been giving Scott a series in each half for several weeks, was Ced blowing up then too? Why is giving a good runner carries stupid? We rotate the DL, Why not rotate the RB? [/quote] Agreed especially since Marvin has been saying since the beginning of the year that he wanted to get Scott more touches, and in fact his number of runs has been higher the last few weeks (yeah, obviously the one where Ced was suspended, but I'm talking the weeks beside that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Scott comes in every 3rd series to start the game. Was it the third drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Lap and Hoard never mentioned any skirmish.[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1320720363' post='1058557'] Scott comes in every 3rd series to start the game. Was it the third drive? [/quote] Scott made his typical 3rd series appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 [b]Since the Bengals have 2 1st rd picks next April, I think Benson is gone and they'll go [color=#ff3300]RB[/color] (1a) & [color=#ff3300]R[/color][color=#ff3300]G[/color] (1b).[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Benson played well yesterday. I'm ready to be done with him though. He has a pretty shitty attitude, and he just isn't any kind of guy that defenses are really fearful of breaking a big one off. It's time to get younger and find a guy who wants to prove something. On the topic, I hate how we sub running backs. I would run Benson for a few and put Scott in for a max two plays then go back to Cedric. This whole play them for a series just isn't too much of a change-up to any defense. Oh and running B.Scott when trying to run down the clock was beffudling. Wouldn't we want to wear them down with a bigger guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalLady Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 what he said up there. kind of annoys me too. I like the Scott better, just a different style i guess. He did really well the last couple games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 [quote name='JC' timestamp='1320725818' post='1058599'] Benson played well yesterday. I'm ready to be done with him though. He has a pretty shitty attitude, and he just isn't any kind of guy that defenses are really fearful of breaking a big one off. It's time to get younger and find a guy who wants to prove something. On the topic, I hate how we sub running backs. I would run Benson for a few and put Scott in for a max two plays then go back to Cedric. This whole play them for a series just isn't too much of a change-up to any defense. [b]Oh and running B.Scott when trying to run down the clock was beffudling. Wouldn't we want to wear them down with a bigger guy?[/b] [/quote] Maybe... If you have succeeded in pounding and tiring the defense, it may be harder for them to keep up with a slasher with fresh legs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal27 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 [quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1320725388' post='1058594'] [b]Since the Bengals have 2 1st rd picks next April, I think Benson is gone and they'll go [color=#ff3300]RB[/color] (1a) & [color=#ff3300]R[/color][color=#ff3300]G[/color] (1b).[/b] [/quote] Is there great guard coming out? Guards are rarely taken in the first round. Of course, maybe our second 1st will be a pick after 30;) and I don't mean Oaklands pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.