Dynasty: What is Bernard Scott's Value? (1 Viewer)

[Hoss_Cartwright]

The word has it that Benson perceives his value a lot more than everyone else. Will he sign somewhere besides Cincinnati? In a small sample size Scott ran for a 4.9 ypc last year and 4.3 in 2009. Benson ran for 1111 yds, but only at a 3.5 ypc clip. Benson is please with the firing of Bob Bratkowski and the hiring of Jay Gruden, who announced his intentions to "pound the ball" and "run between the tackles". However, I think money is more important to Benson than scheme.

What is Bernard Scott's value in dynasty leagues? Is he worth giving up a late 1st rd rookie pick in a trade for him?

 

[AngryPatriot]

My opinion is that he's a hold in dynasty, esp. if you have Benson. It's going to depend on how it plays out but as of today, Benson is a true #1 and Scott is still the backup. The ypc thing is relatively useless when you factor the amount of carries, plus Benson is a big guy, Scott smaller. It would depend on where one was at in the draft (what might be available), wether one had Benson already, type of scoring...

It's a bit of a gamble to trade away a 1st round pick for Scott. There's more hype than substance at this point, ala Forsett type, but I might consider it if my team is solid and I want that depth behind Benson or Benson gets traded. My feeling is Benson sticks in Cincy with Scott as bu. I'm not sure Scott is a "pound the ball" type of guy. Is he a Jamaal Charles or Chris Johnson type of player? They are more the exceptions to the rule, imo

 

[Dawg Pound 69]

I'd buy for a mid/late 2nd. I'd sell for an early 2nd. Would love to get a late 1st for him. If Marvin had left then Scott's value could have gone up. But I don't get the sense that Coach Lewis will ever give him the chance to be the feature back.

 

[Bri]

I thought it seemed Benson was as good as gone and now they're leaning toward keeping/re-signing him.

I think you have to bank on Scott as a starter now. There was enough energy to go on heading into the offseason and if you wait for FF, you won't get him cheap enough in trades.

 

[todisco1]

I thought it seemed Benson was as good as gone and now they're leaning toward keeping/re-signing him. I think you have to bank on Scott as a starter now. There was enough energy to go on heading into the offseason and if you wait for FF, you won't get him cheap enough in trades.

From what I've heard, the coaches don't think Scott is a starting RB. If Benson leaves I think they may bring someone else and keep Scott in his current role. Also, Scott is 27, so it's not like he's much younger than Benson.

 

[Zdravko]

I take those "we want to re-sign Cedric" statements with a big grain of salt.

Cincy are in a state of flux. They are clearly not a contender next season and need to rebuild the entire offense from scratch. In this situation, why would they pay big $$ to an aging Benson, with his declining ypc? Makes no practical sense. It's not like he is some locker room role model that will guide younger players.

In response to the OP, a late-first is pushing it. I would probably sell for an early second, buy for a mid-second. Scott has value, but nobody thinks he can survive the punishment of 15-20 carries per week. However, he does have good receiving skills and lightening pace. The new Cincy offense is expected to be heavily run-dominated, so Scott would make an excellent counterpart to a different style RB, ala Thomas Jones - Jamaal Charles in Kansas.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

I thought it seemed Benson was as good as gone and now they're leaning toward keeping/re-signing him. I think you have to bank on Scott as a starter now. There was enough energy to go on heading into the offseason and if you wait for FF, you won't get him cheap enough in trades.

From what I've heard, the coaches don't think Scott is a starting RB. If Benson leaves I think they may bring someone else and keep Scott in his current role. Also, Scott is 27, so it's not like he's much younger than Benson.

I've heard this as well. I have Scott stashed on a couple benches, but am almost certain he'll have little-to-no-value next year barring injury to either Benson or Benson's replacement.

 

[Hoosier16]

I take those "we want to re-sign Cedric" statements with a big grain of salt. Cincy are in a state of flux. They are clearly not a contender next season and need to rebuild the entire offense from scratch. In this situation, why would they pay big $ to an aging Benson, with his declining ypc? Makes no practical sense. It's not like he is some locker room role model that will guide younger players.

Cincy won't have to pay big $ to retain him. I think Benson will not find anyone willing to pay him big $. Cincy may be the only one who offers him a starting job.I wouldn't even pay a 2nd for Scott. As others have already pointed out, he likely isn't in line for the starting job. He has little value as a part time RB.

 

[Shutout]

I think people over react WAY too much into repeating what others say as an "oh, by the way" without realy thinking it through.

Bernard Scott has shown up every time he has been able to play with the Bengals. he clearly looked to be bringing more to the table than benson did at several points last year (and that is assuming benson stays). Scott was rediculously productive in college. We can say it wasn't the same level of competition but he wouldn't be the first guy to come from "lower" competition to shine and if you believe in "where there is smoke, there is fire", then you can't ignore Scott. Take a minute to gawk at this: His stat line over 2 and a partial years in college (credit Hoss) So in three years of playing he has: 680 carries, 5,347 yards (7.9 ypc), 74 TDs, 116 receptions, 1647 yards and 10 TDs. Again, you can cite lesser talent but anyone who averages 8 yards a carry and can get almost 100 TDs and carry the ball 700 times has something going for him.

In addition to those kinds of stats suggesting talent, it also suggests durability. Over 500 carries in two years, almost 700 in 2 and a half. I see people post all the time that he isn't durable, that coaches don't think he can stay healthy...can't handle 15-20 touches. I can recall some other guys that are almost identical to him in size that people said the same thing on:

-Ray Rice

-Jamal charles

-Steve Slaton

-Ahmad bradshaw

Overall, I really wish he wasn't already 27 (but he has low miles, ala Michael Turner and DWIl the first few years) and I wish the opportunity path was clearer (this could be anythign from him playing with Benson again who looked like he wore down last year to not playing with Benson at all and that opening a door or shutting it), but there is no way I would buy the whole "he can't be a feature back" talk.

If I go after him, I do so thinking he is worth the 17th pick and on in a rookie and I hope that the cheap O Bungels let benson walk and bring in a guy like Clinton portis or jason Snelling off free agency and Scott gets his chance at some point. If there is one thing we all KNOW about the Bengals its that IF Scott gets a chance and shines, that guarantees that the Bengals will leave him alone for a couple of seasons until his underpaid contract expires.

 

[Zdravko]

Not sure if I buy that logic. Some team in need of a veteran bruiser will probably be willing to pay more than Cincy. Not big money, but bigger money than what Benson can get from his current team that has no need for him.

As for paying the second, I own Benson in one league and tried to get Scott for the 2.09 two weeks ago - without success. I think you may be underestimating the stats that a decent RB can put up in RBBC in run-heavy offense.

 

[Kirby]

Marvin doesn't know what he's doing. Bernard out plays Ced, but Marvin thinks he's too immature so he keeps him on the bench most of the time. Same reason he had Dunlap on the bench the first half of the season. If they are the most talented play them... fuuuuuu!

 

[Bri]

I take those "we want to re-sign Cedric" statements with a big grain of salt. Cincy are in a state of flux. They are clearly not a contender next season and need to rebuild the entire offense from scratch. In this situation, why would they pay big $ to an aging Benson, with his declining ypc? Makes no practical sense. It's not like he is some locker room role model that will guide younger players.

I don't like the "rebuild entire offense" part above at all. Not gonna jump on it.The re-sign Cedric stuff has often been present in Carson articles. Cincy is going to have some serious $ if TO, Ocho and Carson are all gone. If Benson is (relatively) cheap that gives them a position they don't have to draft. Brown's infamously frugal- losing three high paid players and keeping one moderately paid one does seem to be the modus operandi there. All of us often say "get a rookie" or "draft a replacement" or somesuch and teams only have seven picks. They can't fill every position and get a new backup at each position. I know everyone understands both concepts, but we never talk about the middle ground at all. I don't know that there's ever been a discussion here that was sign a FA LB, RB, TE and then draft WR, QB, S, and CB. I think re-signing Benson isn't ideal, but they're realizing it's the best option.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

The basic problem with Scott is his current team doesn't seem to believe he can handle the load. Combine that with the fact that he's already 27, and I don't think there's much reason for optimism. He won't be a free agent until he's 29.

As someone who took him in a rookie draft a couple of years ago, I'm just hoping he'll have at least half of a season where I'd feel good about starting him.

 

[Zdravko]

If Cincy are as frugal as described, that actually works against re-signing Benson. Assuming there is any market at all for his services, why would frugal Cincy choose to compete in it? Benson brings nothing to the table that they need or can't get cheaper elsewhere.

The fact that there may be money left over after TO / Carson / Ocho also does not lead to the conclusion that this money is best spent on Benson. If you are CIN and you are hoping to be competitive in a couple years, why would you fork out any extra coin for an older RB? You are best served to invest in players that will be approaching max productivity at the time you plan to contend.

Note that I am not saying Scott is the answer. I am just saying Benson is not.

 

[Yellow Line is Unoffcial]

The question is not if we believe Scott can be an everydown back, the question is if the Cincy coaches believe. To date they have done nothing to show they think Scott is anything but a change of pace/3rd down/special teams guy. I don't think that changes. Scott's value (as very other players) is tied to oppertunity. I don't see an oppertunity with the Bengals.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

I think people over react WAY too much into repeating what others say as an "oh, by the way" without realy thinking it through.

Bernard Scott has shown up every time he has been able to play with the Bengals. he clearly looked to be bringing more to the table than benson did at several points last year (and that is assuming benson stays). Scott was rediculously productive in college. We can say it wasn't the same level of competition but he wouldn't be the first guy to come from "lower" competition to shine and if you believe in "where there is smoke, there is fire", then you can't ignore Scott. Take a minute to gawk at this: His stat line over 2 and a partial years in college (credit Hoss) So in three years of playing he has: 680 carries, 5,347 yards (7.9 ypc), 74 TDs, 116 receptions, 1647 yards and 10 TDs. Again, you can cite lesser talent but anyone who averages 8 yards a carry and can get almost 100 TDs and carry the ball 700 times has something going for him.

In addition to those kinds of stats suggesting talent, it also suggests durability. Over 500 carries in two years, almost 700 in 2 and a half. I see people post all the time that he isn't durable, that coaches don't think he can stay healthy...can't handle 15-20 touches. I can recall some other guys that are almost identical to him in size that people said the same thing on:

-Ray Rice

-Jamal charles

-Steve Slaton

-Ahmad bradshaw

Overall, I really wish he wasn't already 27 (but he has low miles, ala Michael Turner and DWIl the first few years) and I wish the opportunity path was clearer (this could be anythign from him playing with Benson again who looked like he wore down last year to not playing with Benson at all and that opening a door or shutting it), but there is no way I would buy the whole "he can't be a feature back" talk.

If I go after him, I do so thinking he is worth the 17th pick and on in a rookie and I hope that the cheap O Bungels let benson walk and bring in a guy like Clinton portis or jason Snelling off free agency and Scott gets his chance at some point. If there is one thing we all KNOW about the Bengals its that IF Scott gets a chance and shines, that guarantees that the Bengals will leave him alone for a couple of seasons until his underpaid contract expires.

He's 5'10", 196lbs, and the coaching staff has shown nothing but reluctance to use him more than they do.He's basically Jerome Harrison Pt.2 - If you want to fall in love with him, feel free. I drank the Kool-Aid on Harrison and learned my lesson.

 

[Zdravko]

I actually looked up Scott's stats when Benson was injured last year. He did quite okay, 4.6 ypc on 52 carries in 2.5 games. You may be right that coaches don't trust him, but I don't see anything in his production to suggest that he is not worth a try. If Benson is indeed not re-signed, I'd be surprised if Scott doesn't get a good chunk of the load.

Gotta wonder why they choose to run Benson into the ground at the end of the season. 31, 24, 21 carries in the last three meaningless games.

 

[David Yudkin]

I looked up players that have posted a 4.5 ypc over their first two seasons that had 100-150 carries in that time (since Scott fell into that group). There haven't been a ton of guys in that situation (and that clearly has no bearing on how he will do in the future). But the names on the list are not world beaters . . .

Felix Jones, Ted McKnight, **** Bass, Ernie Green, Warren McVea, Clarence Davis, Justin Forsett, Rashad Jennings, Brad Hubbert, Barry Foster, Chris Ivory, Sid Blanks, Najeh Davenport, Cid Edwards, Troy Hambrick, Tom Moore, Albert Bentley, Joe Carter, LaMont Jordan, Robert Newhouse, Hokie Gajan, Jess Phillips, Russ Smith, Bruce Harper, Horace Ivory, Bill Triplett, Lionel James, Jarrod Bunch, Larry Johnson, Gerald Willhite, Tony Baker, Alonzo Highsmith, Frank Pollard, Curtis Brown, Robert Delpino, Kenny Watson, Kelvin Bryant, Correll Buckhalter, Ron Lee

The big name that jumps out is Larry Johnson, but the others have been mostly underwhelming when taken as a whole.

Scott reminds me of Mewelde Moore. Moore excelled when given the chance in either MIN or PIT. He's had 12 games with 100+ yfs scrimmage over his career but never seemed to earn more playing time and always ended up going back to being a role plater even after stringing together some decent outings in a row. Overall, I think players just get the rep for being a backup are are not really given a legit shot at becoming a starter.

Scott may fall into that category. In two years, he's only had 10 or more carries 4 times, and 3 of those were when Benson was hurt. If the Bengals really considered Scott as a guy to build around and their back of the future, wouldn't they have given him the ball more last year when they weren't going anywhere? As others pointed out, Benson got 86 carries over the last three games. Why would they do that if they wanted to consider Scott for the starting job? IMO, I don't see Scott's role increasing all that much and the main back will be Benson or someone else, but certainly we don't know that to be the case just yet.

 

[trader jake]

I view him as a SELL right now.

There is enough upside, talk, and reasons to buy that his stock is high enough to get something of value in return. He's talented but I just don't view him as a #1 RB for an NFL team, but at least one owner in your league will.

 

[Eminence]

He's an injury away from getting a TON of carries.

 

[David Yudkin]

He's an injury away from getting a TON of carries.

So are a lot of other RBs.

 

[Eminence]

He's an injury away from getting a TON of carries.

So are a lot of other RBs.

...really now?1.) Cincinnati runs the ball a TON, more specifically they prefer ONE GUY to carry the load.2.) It's consensus that Bernard Scott has plenty of talent.This is a Jamaal Charles / James Harrison situation.Bernard Scott's value SHOULD be fairly high.Stay classy Dave.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I thought it seemed Benson was as good as gone and now they're leaning toward keeping/re-signing him. I think you have to bank on Scott as a starter now. There was enough energy to go on heading into the offseason and if you wait for FF, you won't get him cheap enough in trades.

If you bank on Scott being the starter next year, your bank will be broke next year.

 

[Bri]

I thought it seemed Benson was as good as gone and now they're leaning toward keeping/re-signing him. I think you have to bank on Scott as a starter now. There was enough energy to go on heading into the offseason and if you wait for FF, you won't get him cheap enough in trades.

If you bank on Scott being the starter next year, your bank will be broke next year.

Maybe, that's the risk of course.whats the market for him to deem if he's worth a shot here?

 

[Hoosier16]

He's an injury away from getting a TON of carries.

So are a lot of other RBs.

...really now?1.) Cincinnati runs the ball a TON, more specifically they prefer ONE GUY to carry the load.

2.) It's consensus that Bernard Scott has plenty of talent.

This is a Jamaal Charles / James Harrison situation.

Bernard Scott's value SHOULD be fairly high.

Stay classy Dave.

Reason #1 is the reason why Scott shouldn't have any value in Cincinnati. Here are the lead RBs (and weights) under Marvin Lewis (2 listed when the starter was injured or replaced):

2003 - Cory Dillon - 225

2003 - Rudi Johnson - 230

2004 - Rudi Johnson - 230

2005 - Rudi Johnson - 230

2006 - Rudi Johnson - 230

2007 - Rudi Johnson - 230

2007 - Kenny Watson - 218

2008 - Chris Perry - 224

2008 - Cedric Benson - 225

2009 - Cedric Benson - 225

2010 - Cedric Benson - 225

2011 - Bernard Scott - 200 ?

Does one of those guys look out of place?

 

[Shutout]

[He's 5'10", 196lbs, and the coaching staff has shown nothing but reluctance to use him more than they do.He's basically Jerome Harrison Pt.2 - If you want to fall in love with him, feel free. I drank the Kool-Aid on Harrison and learned my lesson.

Maybe that says more about how stupid the Bengals are than anything.I still don't get the band-wagon consensus view that people seem to think this guy isn't big enough to play well.He's within ~10 pounds of several other guys that EVERYONE said was too small but they are now some of the consensus top young backs in the league:-Rice-J. Charles-Bradhsaw-Slaton-MJD (yeah, I know everyone thinks he's a mini-Bettis but he's not that heavy..listed at 208)All these guys that were passed over and knocked as never being anything more than a "change of pace" back now look like a dream core for a dynasty team. They are not all built the same beyond their relative similarities to height and weight but if anyone is going to start picking that apart, then we should also consider the one stat that truly matters: proven production.Scott HAS played well in the NFL when given a chance. In college, his numbers look like Tecmo Bowl.And like I said before, if we know ANYTHING about the Bengals, its that IF they put him in and he gets the job done, the frugal Bengals will leave him alone and ride his cheap contract for a few years. I can definitely see a scenario where the Bengals don't pay Benson and then bring in a "big guy" like Snelling or some other guy that has shown he can do some things but won't break the bank. Then they will clearly see that Scott is better than any 2nd rate guy they bring in.I'm not in love with the idea of banking that the Bengals will be smart enough to see what they have but that's not Scott's fault. He may have to wait until the Bungles get slapped with reality a few times, but I still consider Scott as a great buy for the season.

 

[The Man With No Name]

I'm sure Scott is heavier than the weight posted here. That was what it was when he came into the league. Don't most or all the lighter players add weight once they get to the NFL? I think so. Heck, Warrick Dunn was in the 170's when he was drafted.

 

[Hoosier16]

[He's 5'10", 196lbs, and the coaching staff has shown nothing but reluctance to use him more than they do.He's basically Jerome Harrison Pt.2 - If you want to fall in love with him, feel free. I drank the Kool-Aid on Harrison and learned my lesson.

Maybe that says more about how stupid the Bengals are than anything.I still don't get the band-wagon consensus view that people seem to think this guy isn't big enough to play well.He's within ~10 pounds of several other guys that EVERYONE said was too small but they are now some of the consensus top young backs in the league:-Rice-J. Charles-Bradhsaw-Slaton-MJD (yeah, I know everyone thinks he's a mini-Bettis but he's not that heavy..listed at 208)All these guys that were passed over and knocked as never being anything more than a "change of pace" back now look like a dream core for a dynasty team. They are not all built the same beyond their relative similarities to height and weight but if anyone is going to start picking that apart, then we should also consider the one stat that truly matters: proven production.Scott HAS played well in the NFL when given a chance. In college, his numbers look like Tecmo Bowl.And like I said before, if we know ANYTHING about the Bengals, its that IF they put him in and he gets the job done, the frugal Bengals will leave him alone and ride his cheap contract for a few years. I can definitely see a scenario where the Bengals don't pay Benson and then bring in a "big guy" like Snelling or some other guy that has shown he can do some things but won't break the bank. Then they will clearly see that Scott is better than any 2nd rate guy they bring in.I'm not in love with the idea of banking that the Bengals will be smart enough to see what they have but that's not Scott's fault. He may have to wait until the Bungles get slapped with reality a few times, but I still consider Scott as a great buy for the season.

The Bengals stupidity is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they think and what they do. Their past actions and thoughts point to them using a bigger RB almost exclusively. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about Scott's abilities. Because of that, Scott should not be a great buy this season, unless you are willing to roster him until he becomes a FA in 2 years when, of course as already pointed out, he will be a 29 yo RB. To most, I think that roster spot is too valuable.The idea that the Bengals are too cheap is overblown. In the last two years, they have signed both Coles and Bryant to 20+ million dollar contracts.