Comments on: Packers sign Cedric Benson

By: AZWarrior

AZWarrior — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 02:57:31 +0000

Well, Ced was very effective against the Bengals, even catching a pass for ten yards. The word was he wasn’t an effective receiver. He looked quite effective to me. It may help that AR was throwing him the ball. If opposing teams try and slow our passing game down with two deep safeties, I forsee lots of production from Cedric.

By: awhayes

awhayes — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:17:26 +0000

Nice Trav – would be interesting. WHile of course I don’t want Rodgers to get injured, if he did, we could struggle some with our two options there right now. So pairing McCarthy with the potential-talent-loaded T-Jax could be a nice scenario. And of course if T-Jax helped us out in anyway, I would be obnoxious about it!

By: Trav

Trav — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:13:35 +0000

Did you start this rumor Andy? This has been your wish for years.

From Jason Cole at Yahoo Sports:

Assuming Flynn/Wilson are healthy after Fri game, expect Tarvaris Jackson to be traded Sat. Many teams interested, inc Miami, GB, Minn, SD.

By: 56Coop

56Coop — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:27:15 +0000

Yes they did stink but for a ppositive it appeared the starting O line did a decent job of protecting Rodgers. Hope they stay healthy because I didn’t see much depth.

By: ace

ace — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:38:54 +0000

Browns moving ball with ease against first team defense and no sign of depth against second and third string of browns-not a good sign. Pass rush? Run blocking? May be better when first units play a half. Pick up colt mccoy and drop harrell.would like to have seen untested Coleman for a series or two. Recognizing the different intent of Mccarthy and shurmur/look at everyone versus establishing stability and continuity/ the pack absolutely stunk.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 04:26:27 +0000

thanks- i guess i would have taken a longer look at some more defense if that was an option

By: Dave in Tucson

Dave in Tucson — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:14:37 +0000

Right -- 15 catches for 82 yards last year. And one career touchdown receiving. So yeah, he doesn't look like a huge threat in the passing game.

By: Travis

Travis — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:00:59 +0000

As far as I know, he is not a receiving back. I think I saw somewhere that he caught just 15 balls last season.

I think the idea of it is, we do want to sort of balance our offense a bit. And I think Starks, Green and Benson may be able to do some good things in the running game together, due to the threat of our passing game. But, we’ve had a good passing game for a while, and it has never seemed to open up the running game, so who knows.

Regardless, I think the idea to be more balanced stems off that fact that if our passing game struggles in a game or hits a bump in the season, we’ll have other options. For example, NFC championship we were struggling to catch the ball, and when we can only rely on the passing game, were in a tough spot to do anything if we can’t make the catch.

But for as long as we have Rodgers and the great receiving corps, we will always be a pass heavy team. It would just be nice if we can also do some damage on the ground as well.

By: mark

mark — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:48:38 +0000

how is he at catching out of the backfield-ive never followed his carrier anyone know?

By: Dave in Tucson

Dave in Tucson — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:56:54 +0000

Wow. Preseason or not, this is the ugliest game I’ve seen the Packers play in a looooooooooooong time